Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity

[Hannah M.G. Shapero]

Dear seekers of ASHA,

This article of mine has recently been published in the premiere
issue of HUMATA, a journal of the Center for Ancient Iranian Studies,
edited by Dr. Farhang Mehr and Dr. K.D.Irani. This is also the text of my
talk which I gave to the Zoroastrian Society of Ontario, in Toronto this
September.
I hope you enjoy the reading.

ZOROASTRIANISM, JUDAISM, AND CHRISTIANITY

Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity share so many
features that it seems that there must be a connection between
them. Does this connection really exist? If so, how did it happen?
And how much of the similarity between these faiths is due simply
to parallel evolution, rather than direct contact and influence?
The simplest answer to the first question is, yes, there is a
great deal of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity,
but the problem is that it is hard to document this exactly, at least
in the early stages of Judaism. The evidence is there, but it is all
"circumstantial" evidence and often does not stand up to the
rigorous judgment of scholarship. Nevertheless, I will dare to
present these ideas assertively, with the qualification that there will
likely be no definite way to prove them either true or untrue.
In 586 BCE, the forces of the Babylonian Empire
conquered the Jews, destroying their Temple and carrying off a
proportion of the Jewish population into exile. The captives
consisted especially of educated and upper-class people as well as
the royal family. This "Babylonian captivity" lasted almost fifty
years. In 539 BCE the Persians, under the leadership of the
Achaemenid King Cyrus, conquered Babylon, and in 538 Cyrus
issued a decree stating that the Jews would be allowed to return to
their homeland. Not only were the Exiles released, but Cyrus, and
to some extent his Achaemenid successors, also supported the
rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus' policy was
motivated not only by his religious tolerance (he also encouraged
other, pagan peoples to maintain their own religions) but by
statesmanlike wisdom; people treated generously are less likely to
rebel.
But not all the Jews wanted to go home. In the years of
Exile, the adaptable Jewish people had established themselves in
Mesopotamia, settling there and engaging in business and even
politics. Many Jews, while remaining devout Jews, did not go back
to their homeland. They carried on their lives in their new home,
and as the Persian Empire consolidated its rule, some Jews even
rose to high positions of service in the imperial court.
It was during the end of the Exile, among the Jews now
living in the Persian Empire, that the first significant contact was
made between the Jewish and Iranian cultures. And it is evident in
the Bible that Jewish thinking changed after the Exile. The
question is then: are these changes the result of the cultural
meeting of Jewish and Iranian thinkers, or are these changes due to
the shock of Exile? During the Exile, Jews had to change not only
how they worshipped, since they no longer had their temple or the
animal sacrifices which had been at the center of their faith, but
also how they thought about God. The Jewish concept of God as
their tribal protector, who would save them from being conquered
or exiled, had to undergo revision.
I believe that both factors are present, inspiring the changes
in post-exilic Judaism: not only the Jews thinking new thoughts
about God and humanity, but also contact with the Zoroastrian
religion of the Persian Empire. But then another question arises:
how did the ancient Jews learn about Zoroastrianism? It is highly
unlikely that Jewish scholars and thinkers ever directly
encountered Zoroastrian scriptures such as the Gathas (the
founding text of the Zoroastrian faith, attributed to the Prophet
Zarathushtra himself) or the Yashts (hymns of praise to various
intermediate deities and guardian spirits, adapted from pre-
Zarathushtrian mythology). The priestly usage and archaic
language of the Avesta scriptures would be a barrier to Jews. But
most of Zoroastrianism, known and practiced among the people,
existed in oral tradition: through word of mouth, not by the study
of written scriptures. This oral tradition included stories about
God, the Creation, the ethical and cosmic conflict of Good and
Evil, the divine Judgment and the end of the world. The tradition
would also include the well-known Zoroastrian symbolism of fire,
light and darkness, as well as stories and prayers about the yazatas
or intermediate spiritual beings and the Prophet Zarathushtra.
These are all elements of what might be called "classic"
Zoroastrianism (as it developed from the "primal" Zoroastrianism
of the Gathas).
This is how the Jews encountered Zoroastrianism - in
private dialogues and political and civic experience, rather than in
formal religious studies. And as the Jewish religion was re-made
after the catastrophe of the Exile, these Zoroastrian teachings
began to filter into the Jewish religious culture.
There are some venturesome scholars who say that the
Jewish idea of monotheism was inspired by contact with
Zoroastrian monotheism. While it is true that Jewish monotheistic
ideas did change after the Exile, I do not believe that it was
Zoroastrian contact which inspired this change. Rather, it was the
fact of the Exile itself. Jewish thinkers and prophets even before
the Exile were hinting at a concept of One God who was greater
than just an ethnic divinity. When the Captivity threw these
thinkers into a foreign culture, away from their divinely appointed
homeland, it was necessary to broaden their idea of God to a more
universal and abstract deity, who could be worshipped with praise
and moral actions rather than animal sacrifices and liturgies. The
concept of a single God whom all nations would eventually
worship evolved among a conquered and exiled people no longer
assured of their divinely protected status.
The Gathas of Zarathushtra, which may pre-date Cyrus by
almost a thousand years, do describe God in universalist and
abstract terms, but by the time of the Jewish contact, it is unclear
just what type of monotheism was believed in the Zoroastrian
community. Was it a true monotheism which worships only One
God, to whom all other gods are either evil demons or simply non-
existent? This seems to be the monotheism of Zarathushtra, but not
of the Achaemenid kings of the Persian Empire, who were able to
incorporate the veneration of subordinate divinities into their
worship, as long as these subordinates were recognized as
creations of the One God and not gods in their own right. The
Jews, as we will see, would recognize angels as semi-divine
intermediaries, but would not go so far as the Zoroastrians in
honoring those intermediaries with hymns of praise such as the
Yashts.
One of the most important differences beween Jewish
monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize
the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and
darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long
theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with
Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second
Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes
cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God:
"I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I
make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all
this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for
Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world,
denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of
"good" and favorable things.
Therefore I would not say that contact with Zoroastrian
monotheism influenced Jewish monotheism. The philosophical
minds of the two cultures may indeed have recognized each other
as fellow monotheists, but this central Jewish doctrine is one
which was not learned from the Zoroastrians. It grew from the
original monotheistic revelation attributed to Moses, just as
Zoroastrian monotheism grew from the revelation of Zarathushtra
(who may indeed have been roughly contemporary, though
completely unconnected, with Moses). These were two parallel
journeys towards understanding of one God.
There are other developments, however, in the Jewish faith
which are much more easily connected with Zoroastrian ideas.
One of the most visible changes after the Exile is the emergence of
a Jewish idea of Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife. Before the Exile
and Persian contact, Jews believed that the souls of the dead went
to a dull, Hades-like place called "Sheol." After the Exile, the idea
of a moralized afterlife, with heavenly rewards for the good and
hellish punishment for the evil, appear in Judaism. One of the
words for "heaven" in the Bible is Paradise - and this word, from
the ancient Iranian words pairi-daeza, "enclosed garden," is one of
the very few definite Persian loan-words in the Bible. This moral
view of the afterlife is characteristic of Zarathushtrian teaching
from its very beginning in the Gathas.
It is also thought that the Jewish idea of a coming Savior,
or Messiah, was influenced by Zoroastrian messianism. Already in
the book of Second Isaiah, possibly written during the Exile, the
prophet speaks of a Savior who would come to rescue the Jewish
people: a benefactor, "anointed" by God to fulfill his role (the word
"messiah" means "anointed one"). In many verses, he identifies
Cyrus the liberator as that Messiah. The growth of messianic ideas
is parallel in both Jewish and Iranian thought. Zarathushtra, in his
Gathas, describes a saoshyant (savior) as anyone who is a
benefactor of the people. Similarly in Jewish prophecy, the
Messiah is not a single special Savior but anyone who does great
things for the Jewish people - even if that person is a Persian King.
But as both Persian and Jewish savior-mythology evolve, the
Saoshyant - and the Messiah - take on a special, individual, almost
divine quality which will be very important in the birth of
Christianity.
The conquests of Alexander of Macedon in the fourth
century BCE created the first "global" culture (at least for the
Western world) in which people, goods, and ideas could circulate
from southern Europe, through the Middle East, all the way to Iran
and India, and vice versa. It was in this cosmopolitan, Hellenistic
world that Jews and Persians had further contact, and the
Zoroastrian influence on Judaism became much stronger. This
influence is clearly visible in the later Jewish writings such as the
Book of Daniel and the books of the Maccabees, which were
written in the second century BCE.
An interesting Biblical account of Zoroastrian-Jewish
contact, as well as an early attestation of Middle Eastern
petroleum, appears in the Second Book of the Maccabees (which is
not found in Jewish Bibles, only in Catholic Christian ones). This
document dates from about 124 BCE, which places it among the
latest books of the Old Testament - so late that the Jewish canon
does not recognize it. In the first chapter of this book, there is a
story of how the Jewish altar fire was restored to the Temple after
the Captivity. Jewish Temple practice required a continuously
burning flame at the altar (Exodus 27:20) though this flame did not
have the special "iconic" quality of the Zoroastrian sacred fire.
Nevertheless, during the restoration of the Jewish temple, this
story arose and is repeated in the Book of the Maccabees, four
hundred years later: "When the matter (restoring the fire) became
known and the king of the Persians heard that in the place where
the exiled priests had hidden the fire a liquid had appeared, with
which Nehemiah and his people had purified the materials of the
sacrifice, the king, after verifying the facts, had the place enclosed
and pronounced sacred." (2 Maccabees 1:33-34) This shows that at
least at the time of the composition of 2 Maccabees, the Jewish
writers were aware of the Zoroastrian reverence for fire - and also
that, if the story is true, the Zoroastrians saw and respected
similarities in practice between their own religion and that of the
Jews. The fiery liquid cited here is petroleum, called "naphtha," a
word which arises from a combination of Persian and Hebrew
words.
The Iranian influence continues to be evident in Jewish
writings from what is known as the "inter-testamental" period, that
is, after the last canonical book of the Old Testament and before
Christianity and the composition of the New Testament. This
covers an era between about 150 BCE to 100 CE. These Jewish
inter-testamental writings describe a complicated hierarchy of
angelic beings, in an echo of the Zoroastrian concept of the holy
court of the Yazatas. The Jewish idea of seven chief archangels
probably has its inspiration in the seven Amesha Spentas, the
highest guardian spirits of Zoroastrian belief. Jews had their own
ideas of angels long before they encountered Zoroastrianism;
angels were nameless, impersonal representatives of God's
message and action. But after the Exile, Jewish angels gain names
and personalities, and also are spoken of as guardians of various
natural phenomena, just like the Zoroastrian yazatas. The Jewish
and Christian idea of a personal "guardian angel" may also have
been inspired by the Zoroastrian figure of the fravashi, the divine
guardian-spirit of each individual human being.
Zoroastrian influence on Judaism is also evident in the
evolution of Jewish ideas about good, evil, and the End of Time.
The original statement of the famous Zoroastrian dualism of good
and evil is found in the Gathas, where Zarathushtra describes the
two conflicting principles of good and evil in what might be called
psychological, or ethical terms. Human beings are faced with the
existence of good and evil within themselves - he describes these
principles as the "beneficent" and the "hostile" spirits - and
everyone must make the choice for Good in order to follow God's
will.
But by the Hellenistic era, Zoroastrianism had already
developed its doctrine of "cosmic dualism" - the idea that the
entire Universe is a battlefield between the One Good God, Ahura
Mazda, and the separate Spirit of Evil, Ahriman. This view of
dualism is a symbolic transformation, and an expansion, of the
more psychologically based teaching of Zarathushtra that good and
evil are ethical choices and states of mind.
Both "cosmic" and "ethical" dualism coexist in Zoroastrian
thought throughout the long history of the faith; their history is not
one of a "pristine" idea of ethical dualism which is supplanted or
"corrupted" by the idea of cosmic dualism. And reflections of both
types of dualism are found in Jewish thinking. The Biblical book
of Deuteronomy, like the other early books of the Old Testament,
was re-edited and possibly even re-written during and after the
Exile. An important passage in Deuteronomy 30:15 shows a
Jewish version of ethical dualism:
"See, today I set before you life and prosperity, death and
disaster. If you obey the commandments of YHVH your God that I
enjoin on you today, if you love YHVH your God and follow His
ways, if you keep His commandments, His laws, His customs, you
will live and increase, and YHVH your God will bless you in the
land which you are entering to make your own. But if your heart
strays, if you refuse to listen, if you let yourself be drawn into
worshipping other gods and serving them, I tell you today, you will
most certainly perish....I set before you life or death, blessing or
curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may
live...." (Deut. 31:15-19, Jerusalem Bible translation)
Even though the original text of the Gathas was most
probably inaccessible to the Jews, the teachings of Zarathushtra
were part of the religious culture of the Persian people among
whom many Jews lived. An interesting notion in Jewish moral
thought which may have been somewhat inspired by Zoroastrian
ethical dualism is the idea of the "evil impulse" and the "good
impulse" (Hebrew, "yetzer tov, " good impulse, and "yetzer hara,"
evil impulse.). This idea seems to arise in the rabbinic thought of
that "inter-testamental" period in which Jews encountered both
Greek and Zoroastrian ideas. In this Jewish moral meditation, God
gives human beings both a "good impulse" and an "evil impulse,"
and they must learn to choose between the promptings of these two
mentalities.
What gives this idea a Jewish "twist" quite different from
the original Zoroastrian teaching is that the evil impulse, in Jewish
thought, is not entirely evil. It is not, like the Zarathushtrian
"hostile spirit," completely inimical to goodness. The Jewish "evil
impulse" is only evil when it is obeyed and yielded to without
restraint. The evil impulse is sinful lust in excess, but in
moderation it is necessary in order to prompt people to procreate;
it is sinful greed in excess, but in right order, it is the drive behind
trade and the pursuit of lawful profit. The Jewish "evil impulse"
thus resembles Freud's concept of the "id," the amoral motive
power behind human actions either for good or evil - and indeed,
Freud was inspired by Jewish moral philosophy in his own
thinking.
But despite these Jewish reflections of ethical dualism, it is
the doctrine of "cosmic dualism," with its mythological and
symbolic content, that most influenced the later Jewish thinkers.
Even before the Exile, under the threat of destruction by foreign
empires, Jewish prophets were moving toward a vision of not only
political, but cosmic war and catastrophe. This type of prophecy,
after the Exile, evolved into apocalyptic (from the Greek word
apokalypsis which means "revelation"). This is a form of religious
storytelling, poetry, and preaching which uses a high level of
mythological symbolism to describe not only a cosmic battle
between the forces of Good and Evil, but also a schedule for the
coming End of Time.
Zoroastrianism, from the beginning, has taught that time
and God's creation has a beginning, a middle, and an end-time in
which all souls will be judged. The Zarathushtrian teachings were
later elaborated and illustrated with mythological motifs, many of
them borrowed from the pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian gods and
goddesses, as well as myths of cosmic conflict from ancient
Mesopotamia. Later Zoroastrianism also teaches of a specific
sacred time-line, a historical structure for the created world. The
Zoroastrians are often credited with introducing eschatology, or
the knowledge of the End of Time and its events, into the religious
world of both West and East.
All religions borrow from their predecessors and adapt old
material for their new dispensation, and Judaism is no exception.
The Iranian world of angels and demons, light and darkness, God
and an Adversary, and a sacred time-line, enters into the Jewish
universe of apocalypse. Many of these apocalyptic writings survive
from the "inter-testamental" period, such as the Book of Enoch, a
compilation of spectacular visions about angels, demons, and the
Last Judgment. The Jewish apocalyptic idea of the End of Time, as
well as a final Judgment by God when that End arrives, owes a
great deal to Zoroastrian thinking.
This Zoroastrian connection becomes even more evident in
the writings of Jewish sects, such as the Essenes. Due to
archeological finds such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the "Nag
Hammadi Library," the modern world can know what these ancient
devotees believed - and some of these beliefs show direct
Zoroastrian influence. This is especially true in the text known as
the "Essene Manual of Discipline," which, like the apocalyptic
texts, describes a war between the Spirit of Light and the Spirit of
Darkness, as well as the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error, and
an ultimate End-Time when the battle will be won. This Essene
text sometimes sounds almost exactly like the Gathas, which are
more than a millennium older: "For God has established the two
spirits in equal measure until the last period, and has put eternal
enmity between their divisions. An abomination to truth are deeds
of error, and an abomination to error are all ways of truth..."
(Essene Manual of Discipline, from THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
ed. Millar Burrows) It could be a free translation of the dualistic
verses of the Gathas.
It is from these Jewish sects, as well as the Jewish
mainstream, that Christianity emerged. The claiming of Jesus as
the awaited Messiah was meant to answer Jewish hopes, and
possibly usher in the End of Time, much as the Zoroastrians
expected of their Saoshyant. It is in the context of the coming
Saoshyant that the story in the second chapter of Matthew's Gospel
(it is a story, not a historical event!) of the Three Magi should be
read; these astrologers, who are thought to be Zoroastrians, were
following the Savior-signs of their own religion when they sought
out the infant Jesus. The famous Prologue of the Gospel of John
("In the beginning was the Word....") has many elements
suggestive of Zoroastrian influence, including philosophical and
ethical dualism, and the light/darkness metaphor so characteristic
of Zoroastrianism. "And that life was the light of men, a light that
shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower."
(John 1: 4-5)
It is often said that the figure of Satan, prince of Evil, was
inspired by Zoroastrian teachings about Ahriman, the adversary of
Ahura Mazda. But the Jewish idea of the "Adversary" (which is
what "satan" means) is not quite like the Zoroastrian Ahriman. In
the post-exilic Book of Job, Satan is an adversary, but he is also
God's loyal servant, doing God's work by testing a righteous man.
Some of the early Talmudic rabbis identified the "evil impulse"
with Satan, but that idea was not completely accepted. Indeed, the
features of Judaism that are most indebted to Zoroastrianism, such
as angels, devils, Heaven and Hell, and eschatology, tended to fade
among believers in later centuries, and they are no longer
emphasized in the Jewish mainstream, though they continue to
hold sway among Jewish sects such as the Hasidim.
It is in Christianity that the doctrine of the Devil is almost
identical to the Zoroastrian concept. The Devil, or Satan, is a being
who CHOSE to be evil, through pride, just as Zarathushtra's evil
spirit chose to do evil; and this devil, as Christians believe, not
only roams about attempting to corrupt people, but has corrupted
the physical world as well, just as Ahriman does in the later
Zoroastrian teachings.
Christianity also adopted Jewish - and Zoroastrian -
apocalyptic myths about cosmic battles and the upcoming end of
the world into its own doctrine. The Christian book of Revelation,
the last book in the New Testament canon, is a later example of a
form that goes back all the way through its Jewish sources to the
distant, ancient worlds of Iran and Mesopotamia.
There are many devoted Jewish and Christian believers
who deny that Zoroastrianism had any influence on their religions.
In their view, this would compromise the unique revelations from
God which characterize these religions. But there are other
believers who follow a more universalist path. To these believers,
the "seeds of wisdom" are found in every religion, including
paganism and Zoroastrianism. Every religion has its grains of
Truth, seeds which can be sown and grown in the garden of a new
revelation, whether that is Jewish or Christian. In this view, it is
not only not wrong to adapt what went before into the new faith,
but it is essential. Thus nothing that is true will be lost.

Hannah M.G.Shapero 9/6/97

HMG Shapero/Z., Judaism, Christianity

5

[ru...@interlog.com]

Hannah M.G. Shapero wrote:

> Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity share so many
> features that it seems that there must be a connection between
> them. Does this connection really exist? If so, how did it happen?
> And how much of the similarity between these faiths is due simply
> to parallel evolution, rather than direct contact and influence?

Nothing could be further from the truth.
The three are as far apart as can be.
Not all three are religions - one is
a cult. Some religions are based on
honesty, charity, and love. Some cults
are based on violence, hatred, and greed.

Know you facts before start insulting
other religions.

[Varza]

An interesting research and essay.

I found your discussion of Zoroastrian monotheism a bit different that what
I understood.

1) Your essay seem to recognize AngrMainu as an -- independent -- source
from SpentaMainu.
2) Your essay puts AhuraMazda in conflict with Evil, thus at the same level.

Based on a brief study of your article I comment on the first two subjects
first.

FROM YOUR ESSAY:
> One of the most important differences between Jewish

>monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize
>the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and
>darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long
>theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with

>Evil as a separate principle....

> But by the Hellenistic era, Zoroastrianism had already
>developed its doctrine of "cosmic dualism" - the idea that the
>entire Universe is a battlefield between the One Good God, Ahura
>Mazda, and the separate Spirit of Evil, Ahriman. This view of
>dualism is a symbolic transformation, and an expansion, of the
>more psychologically based teaching of Zarathushtra that good and

>evil are ethical choices and states of mind....

> It is often said that the figure of Satan, prince of Evil, was
>inspired by Zoroastrian teachings about Ahriman, the adversary of

>Ahura Mazda. But the Jewish idea of the "Adversary" (which is...

(1)FIRST I went to the source to see if I could hear words from Zarathushtra

which directly provides answer to my question. I used a recent (a fairly
literal) translation of Gathas "The Heritage of Zarathushtra" by Humbach
Ichaporia, 1994":

(page31) Yasna 30,3: These are the two spirits (existing) in the beginning,
twins who have been heard of as the two dreams, the two thoughts, the two
words, and the two actions, the better and the evil. Between these two, the
munificent discriminate rightly but not those who give bad gifts.

(page31) Yasna 30,4: When these two spirits confront each other (to fight
for a person, then that person) determines (his) first (existence), (with)
vitality or lack of vitality, and how his existence will be in the end...

(page31) Yasna 30,5: Of these two spirits the deceitful one chooses to do
the worst things, but the ....

(page31) Yasna 30,9: Thus may we be those who make existence brilliant,
O'Mazda and you (other) Ahuras, with the bringing of changes, and with
truth, while (our) thoughts are concentrated on the place where insight
wavers.

(page31) Yasna 31,8: Thus, when I grasp you with my eyes, O'Mazda I realize
that it is through (your) thought that you, the Primal one, are youthful,
the father of good thought, the true creator of truth and the Ahura
(judging) the deeds of the world.

ANALYSIS: In Yasna 30-3, 30-4, 30-5 there is talk of the two spirits,
thoughts, dreams confronting each other. I did not find any other mention of
the two spirits in Gathas. Out of their mingling comes life... Throughout
Gathas, Zarathushtra addresses AhuraMazda as O'Mazda Ahura (or O'Mazda)
without mention of AngraMainu next to it. In Yasna 31-8, Zarathushtra call
AhuraMazda the Primal one, the father of good .... You don't see AhuraMazda
as father of Evil, I can say Evil is not an independent entity by itself.

(2) SECOND I used a religious source -- "Our Perfecting World" by Dasturji
Maneckji Dhalla, 1930. I found great explanations in early pages of this
book.

(page 9) Zoroastrian Dualism which teaches the incessant warfare between
good and evil, perfection and imperfection, with the ultimate triumph of the
good ... The imperfect world, according to Zarathushtra, is man's
opportunity. The perfect world is in the making. God has planned it and
entrusted man with the duty of completing it.... Whoso furthers health,
lengthens life, promotes knowledge, spreads truth, advances peace, or
assists righteousness, co-operates with the godhead in ushering perfection.

ANALYSIS: Dastur Dhalla seem to explain Evil is imperfection -- lack of
perfection.

(3) THIRD I went to a credible philoshical source on Zarathushtra's
dualism -- "Philosophy of History" by Hegel, trans. 1837 ed. (discussion of
Persia and Zoroastrianism seem to have disappeared from current editions of
this book.)

(page 242) But here in Persia first arises the light which shines itself,
and illuminates what is around; for Zoroaster's "Light" belongs to the world
of consciousness -- to spirit as a relation to something destinct by itself.
We see in the Persian world a pure exalted Unity .... Light makes no
distinctions; Sun shines on the righteous and unrighteous ... It holds a
position of antithesis to Darkness, and this antithetical relation opens out
to us the principle of activity and life.

(page 248) Light puts man in a position to be able to exercise choice... As
man could not appreciate good, if evil were not; and as he can be really
good as he has become acquainted with the contrary ... But there is still a
higher being not affected by this antithesis.

ANALYSIS: Hegel's words seem to be the echo of Yasna 30. He does a great
work of explaining the metaphor of Light and Darkness. Where Darkness by
itself is not an independent entity and it's simply lack Light. (Makes sense
to me.)

Best Regards ('This is one eternal dance of Life' said Lao Tsu)
Jamshid Varza

P.S. If you like more reading on this subject :Zoroastrianism and Judaism,
by George William Carter, 1918, AMS Press

[Joseph M. Emmanuel]

On 3 Dec 1997 02:15:34 -0500, hm...@access4.digex.net (Hannah M.G. Shapero)
wrote:

>Dear seekers of ASHA,
>
> This article of mine has recently been published in the premiere
>issue of HUMATA, a journal of the Center for Ancient Iranian Studies,
>edited by Dr. Farhang Mehr and Dr. K.D.Irani. This is also the text of my
>talk which I gave to the Zoroastrian Society of Ontario, in Toronto this
>September.
> I hope you enjoy the reading.
>
>ZOROASTRIANISM, JUDAISM, AND CHRISTIANITY

Read your article. Very informative and interesting. I would like,
however, to present a theory to you (and everyone else here):

How about the idea that: Abram (Abraham) was a Zoroastrian himself?

He was from the south of Iraq. He lived very close to the Iranian culture.
Could it be possible that the Jewish people had a long relationship with
Iranians and that is why Cyrus had such a favorable attitude toward them?

I can go into more detail, but for the time being let's start with these
assumptions!

-Joseph (mait...@maitreya.org)
One God, One World, One Humanity
Unity Of All Under One God
http://www.maitreya.org (in English and French)

[MedeElam]

I believe Abraham existed long before the Aryan tribes migrated to the Iranian
plateau.

[pos...@home.com]

Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:

>ZOROASTRIANISM, JUDAISM, AND CHRISTIANITY
>
> Read your article. Very informative and interesting. I would like,
> however, to present a theory to you (and everyone else here):
>
> How about the idea that: Abram (Abraham) was a Zoroastrian himself?
>
> He was from the south of Iraq. He lived very close to the Iranian culture.
> Could it be possible that the Jewish people had a long relationship with
> Iranians and that is why Cyrus had such a favorable attitude toward them?
>
> I can go into more detail, but for the time being let's start with these
> assumptions!
>
>
> -Joseph (mait...@maitreya.org)
> One God, One World, One Humanity
> Unity Of All Under One God
> http://www.maitreya.org (in English and French)

What about the difference in dates of both Prophets and the totally
different account of their lives ?

[Hannah M.G. Shapero]

>
>How about the idea that: Abram (Abraham) was a Zoroastrian himself?
>
>He was from the south of Iraq. He lived very close to the Iranian culture.
>Could it be possible that the Jewish people had a long relationship with
>Iranians and that is why Cyrus had such a favorable attitude toward them?

Dear "Maitreya",

You are not the first to advance this "Abraham/Zoroastrian"
theory. My friend the independent scholar Ardeshir Mehta has also done
some research and speculation on it.

But in my opinion, it is highly unlikely - very close to
impossible - that Abraham could ever have come into contact with
Zarathushtrian religion.
First, we don't know the dates of Abraham's life - or even whether
he really existed! "Abraham," like other great figures of legendary
antiquity, may have been a "composite" or ideal figure made up by the
storytellers of the oral traditions that make up the earliest parts of the
Bible. Yes, the name "Abraham" or something like it has been found in
written texts from Ebla, but no one suggests that these texts were
referring to the Biblical Abraham.
Second, even if Abraham really existed, his Middle Eastern
location is far away from Zarathushtra's Eastern Iranian location. Even
with ancient trade routes, it is highly unlikely that Zarathushtra's
preaching or religion would have spread thousands of miles so quickly.
Third, Abraham's religious vision of Covenant with YHWH, obedience
to God even when the command seems cruel or absurd (sacrifice your son!),
circumcision, and a God who can be bargained with (over Sodom and
Gomorrah) does NOT resemble the impersonal, dualistic, and abstract
religion of Zarathushtra. Abraham's religion is intensely Jewish, even
before the religion of Judaism was ever started - because his story is
being told centuries later by Jews. If Abraham had really had contact with
Zoroastrianism or Zarathushtra, then one would expect him to be praying
towards the Sun or fire, and preaching the dualistic conflict of good and
evil, at least.

The identity of Abraham and Zarathushtra - or the connection
between the two - does have a history in Iranian Islam. According to Dr.
Ali Jafarey, Zoroastrians in newly-conquered Iran fabricated a link or
identity between the two figures in order to convince Muslims that
Zoroastrianism was worth preserving - since Muslims acknowledge Abraham as
their religious progenitor too. This fabrication has since become for many
a faith belief.

Scholars, including Ardeshir Mehta, have tried to create an
etymology for "Abraham" which would be Avestan rather than Hebrew. The use
of pseudo-etymologies is a longstanding practice which has muddied
scholarship for millennia. There is no need to create an Indo-European
etymology for "Abraham." The name, in Hebrew, means "father of a
multitude."

Hannah M.G.Shapero

[Joseph M. Emmanuel]

On 9 Dec 1997 01:57:59 GMT, mede...@aol.com (MedeElam) wrote:

>I believe Abraham existed long before the Aryan tribes migrated to the Iranian
>plateau.

Why?

[Joseph M. Emmanuel]

On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:39:16 -0500, pos...@home.com wrote:

>Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:
>
> >ZOROASTRIANISM, JUDAISM, AND CHRISTIANITY
>>
>> Read your article. Very informative and interesting. I would like,
>> however, to present a theory to you (and everyone else here):
>>

>> How about the idea that: Abram (Abraham) was a Zoroastrian himself?
>>
>> He was from the south of Iraq. He lived very close to the Iranian culture.
>> Could it be possible that the Jewish people had a long relationship with
>> Iranians and that is why Cyrus had such a favorable attitude toward them?
>>

>> I can go into more detail, but for the time being let's start with these
>> assumptions!
>>
>>

>> -Joseph (mait...@maitreya.org)
>> One God, One World, One Humanity
>> Unity Of All Under One God
>> http://www.maitreya.org (in English and French)
>

>What about the difference in dates of both Prophets and the totally
>different account of their lives ?

Who is to say that the dates we use for their presence are correct? None
of these dates are written in stone. There are many different opinions as
to when each lived!

[Joseph M. Emmanuel]

On 10 Dec 1997 01:01:11 -0500, hm...@access5.digex.net (Hannah M.G. Shapero)
wrote:

>>
>>How about the idea that: Abram (Abraham) was a Zoroastrian himself?
>>
>>He was from the south of Iraq. He lived very close to the Iranian culture.
>>Could it be possible that the Jewish people had a long relationship with
>>Iranians and that is why Cyrus had such a favorable attitude toward them?
>

Thanks for the deep analysis. I, would, however, like to mention a few
points here:

The name Abraham, at least shares the part Braham with Brahaman. "A" in
Sanskrit used in front of a word makes it negative, as Vidaya
(Enlightenment) and Avidaya (Ignorance). So Abraham meaning not a Brahaman
(Brahmin). So the name is close to what Aryans of the Hindu background
were using. BTW, you also can find the name Raamah (Ramah) in the Bible
(Genesis 10:7), or Sheba (similar to Shiva).

So there seems to be some influence, or connection between Hebrews and
Sanskrit. This make one wonder if Hebrews were influenced by the Hindu
language (Sanskrit) who were much further away than the Zoroastrians. If
this can be proven to be true, then why not accept that Abraham indeed was
influenced by Zoroastrians and maybe even accepted that he indeed was a
Zoroastrian!

You say that since where Abram (Abraham) started his Mission is hundreds of
miles from the east of Iran, where the Zoroastrian religion started, the
influence is unlikely. If Hindus and Sanskrit names can be found in the
Bible, why not accept that Zoroastrians also could have traveled these
miles and had settled in lands far from their original place (Aryans were
very mobile).

We know Hindus and Iranians (Zoroastrians) have had a close relationship
(were from similar Aryan tribes or were kinsmen). So when we can see some
possible connection between Hebrews and Sanskrit, we may conclude there is
a connection between them and Zoroastrians as well!

You say Zoroastrians "fabricated" a connection between them and Abraham.
Maybe it was not a "fabrication?" As the Bible reveals, the only nation
which helped Hebrews to return to their land and build their Temple again,
was Persia. Maybe Persians knew about this connection then, so when they
conquered Assyria and found Israelites with them, they treated them well
because they knew they were from the same race as they are. That is why
Daniel was treated so well and the king married a Hebrew woman, etc.

The racial feature of Persians, Jews and Arabs are also very similar. Of
course they cannot be completely similar as they each evolved in different
part in the Middle East and each were influenced with other factors. But
in general they have many features in common.

If we accept this theory (that Abram/Abraham was Persian), it means all
Arabs, Hebrews and any other races which have been influenced by them have
Persian (Iranian) blood in them. That means most of the human race:).

[Hannah M.G. Shapero]

>>Gomorrah) does NOT resemble the impersonal, dualistic, and abstract
>>religion of Zarathushtra. Abraham's religion is intensely Jewish, even
>>before the religion of Judaism was ever started - because his story is
>>being told centuries later by Jews. If Abraham had really had contact with
>>Zoroastrianism or Zarathushtra, then one would expect him to be praying
>>towards the Sun or fire, and preaching the dualistic conflict of good and
>>evil, at least.
>>
>

>The name Abraham, at least shares the part Braham with Brahaman. "A" in

>(Brahmin). So the name is close to what Aryans of the Hindu background

>were using. BTW, you also can find the name Raamah (Ramah) in the Bible
>(Genesis 10:7), or Sheba (similar to Shiva).
>
>So there seems to be some influence, or connection between Hebrews and
>Sanskrit. This make one wonder if Hebrews were influenced by the Hindu

Dear "Maitreya" and others:

This is an example of the "pseudo-etymologies" that I referred to
in my posting. The sober fact is that JUST BECAUSE SOME WORDS SOUND ALIKE,
DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE RELATED. I would like to see some other scholarly
sources which connect Hebrew to Sanskrit, rather than your notions of
sound-alikes. Can you cite such sources?

>influence is unlikely. If Hindus and Sanskrit names can be found in the
>Bible

So far, the only evidence that suggests this is your "etymology," which
may be spurious. I would not base any theory on evidence such as this.

>which helped Hebrews to return to their land and build their Temple again,
>was Persia. Maybe Persians knew about this connection then, so when they
>conquered Assyria and found Israelites with them, they treated them well
>because they knew they were from the same race as they are. That is why

There is no evidence of this in the Bible; surely the Jews would have
cited such a relationship had they known it.

>Daniel was treated so well and the king married a Hebrew woman, etc.

Both the figures of Daniel and Esther are LEGENDARY.....to be accurate,
FICTIONAL. No one has ever found any corroborating evidence in
contemporary inscriptions, etc. that would lead one to believe that either
Daniel or Esther really existed. The "tomb of Daniel" shown to tourists in
Susa, Iran is a much later monument and contained no Jewish tomb.
Both the stories of Daniel and Esther are told by the Jews to justify the
Jewish relationship to Persia and to legitimate apocalyptic ideas (in the
case of Daniel) and the holiday of Purim (in the case of Esther.). THEY
ARE NOT HISTORICAL.

>The racial feature of Persians, Jews and Arabs are also very similar.

I find comparisons of ethnicities by their "racial features" to be highly
unpleasant and bordering on racism.

>If we accept this theory (that Abram/Abraham was Persian), it means all
>Arabs, Hebrews and any other races which have been influenced by them have
>Persian (Iranian) blood in them. That means most of the human race:).

You are using pseudo-etymology, ethnic appearances, and complete
speculation to build your theories. I would be more impressed if you cited
archaeological and written evidence as well as similar trends in the
thinking of these peoples. You have done neither and so I must, at least
at this point, consider your thinking to be eccentric and improbable.

Hannah M.G.Shapero

[Brian Mattys]

I see your point, Hannah. Well made!

A large body of scholarly research has demonstrated that the first four
books of the Bible (especially Genesis) were based on Sumerian legend.
For example, the patriarchs are actually the kings of various Sumerian
city-states. Enoch's age is especially indicative of a connection to
Sippar, the city of the sun.

There is something disturbing in Berossus' writing (or the work
attributed to him), where he 'alters' the names. So you end up with
something like four or five lists of 10 kings embraced by various
Semitic (and later Greek) cultures.

-Brian Mattys

[Joseph M. Emmanuel]

On 22 Dec 1997 03:32:07 -0500, hm...@access4.digex.net (Hannah M.G. Shapero)
wrote:

>>>Gomorrah) does NOT resemble the impersonal, dualistic, and abstract

>>>religion of Zarathushtra. Abraham's religion is intensely Jewish, even
>>>before the religion of Judaism was ever started - because his story is
>>>being told centuries later by Jews. If Abraham had really had contact with
>>>Zoroastrianism or Zarathushtra, then one would expect him to be praying
>>>towards the Sun or fire, and preaching the dualistic conflict of good and
>>>evil, at least.
>>>
>>

>>The name Abraham, at least shares the part Braham with Brahaman. "A" in
>

>>(Brahmin). So the name is close to what Aryans of the Hindu background
>>were using. BTW, you also can find the name Raamah (Ramah) in the Bible
>>(Genesis 10:7), or Sheba (similar to Shiva).
>>
>>So there seems to be some influence, or connection between Hebrews and
>>Sanskrit. This make one wonder if Hebrews were influenced by the Hindu
>

>Dear "Maitreya" and others:
>
> This is an example of the "pseudo-etymologies" that I referred to
>in my posting. The sober fact is that JUST BECAUSE SOME WORDS SOUND ALIKE,
>DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE RELATED. I would like to see some other scholarly
>sources which connect Hebrew to Sanskrit, rather than your notions of
>sound-alikes. Can you cite such sources?
>

>>influence is unlikely. If Hindus and Sanskrit names can be found in the

>>Bible
>
>So far, the only evidence that suggests this is your "etymology," which
>may be spurious. I would not base any theory on evidence such as this.
>

>>which helped Hebrews to return to their land and build their Temple again,
>>was Persia. Maybe Persians knew about this connection then, so when they
>>conquered Assyria and found Israelites with them, they treated them well
>>because they knew they were from the same race as they are. That is why
>

>There is no evidence of this in the Bible; surely the Jews would have
>cited such a relationship had they known it.
>

>>Daniel was treated so well and the king married a Hebrew woman, etc.
>

>Both the figures of Daniel and Esther are LEGENDARY.....to be accurate,
>FICTIONAL. No one has ever found any corroborating evidence in
>contemporary inscriptions, etc. that would lead one to believe that either
>Daniel or Esther really existed. The "tomb of Daniel" shown to tourists in
>Susa, Iran is a much later monument and contained no Jewish tomb.
> Both the stories of Daniel and Esther are told by the Jews to justify the
>Jewish relationship to Persia and to legitimate apocalyptic ideas (in the
>case of Daniel) and the holiday of Purim (in the case of Esther.). THEY
>ARE NOT HISTORICAL.
>

>>The racial feature of Persians, Jews and Arabs are also very similar.
>

>I find comparisons of ethnicities by their "racial features" to be highly
>unpleasant and bordering on racism.

There is not any racism involved here. It is just a fact. Is it racism if
someone says that the child of a couple with blond hair and blue eyes
would, most probably, be a blond haired blue eyed child? It is just a
fact. I think you are too sensitive about this topic!

>>If we accept this theory (that Abram/Abraham was Persian), it means all
>>Arabs, Hebrews and any other races which have been influenced by them have
>>Persian (Iranian) blood in them. That means most of the human race:).
>

>You are using pseudo-etymology, ethnic appearances, and complete
>speculation to build your theories. I would be more impressed if you cited
>archaeological and written evidence as well as similar trends in the
>thinking of these peoples. You have done neither and so I must, at least
>at this point, consider your thinking to be eccentric and improbable.
>
>Hannah M.G.Shapero

I think you are an academician. With much evidence presented here, you do
not accept it because other academicians have not approved it.

Not all Truths are in the academic circles!