Literature Review Zoroastrianism and Its Probable Influence on Judiasm and Christianity By Lloyd R. Applegate, B.S., M.Div., S.T.M. Abstract: That Zoroastrianism has had some effect on Judaism and sub- sequently on Christianity is hard to deny in the light of extensive re- search on this matter, although scholars do not agree on the extent of Persian influence during the Babylonian Exile (ca. 597-538 B.C.) In- deed, Judaism apparently enriched Zoroastrianism as well. The Magi who came on the East are an apparent case in point. Christians and Jews should not fear such probing; discovery of truth can never conflict with Ultimate Truth or God. God may very well have revealed some truth to the Persians and other peoples as well. After all, the Holy Spirit works when and where He will. We should rejoice rather than cower at any such extended activity. Zoroastrianism Several years ago while studying world religions at Temple Uni- versity, I was struck by a sentence in Robert S. Hume's The World's Liv- ing Religions: “Perhaps certain...innovations...were adopted from Zo- roastrianism by the Hebrews after they had come into direct contact with that religion in the Babylonian Exile.” (1955, 191) Hume went on to list the concepts of angelology and demonology, of a great Savior or Deliverer to come, of a final resurrection, and of a divine judgement. (Ibid.) At first I shrank from the implications of these statements, but hon- esty and curiosity drove me to a long investigation carried on later at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University School of Theol- ogy. This article is the outcome and product of that research. Zoroastrianism has the same source as the religion of the Vedic Ary- ans. (Noss, 1964, 464) At the parting of Indo-European wanderers near the Caspian Sea about 2,000 B.C., one group (perhaps the larger) went on to India; the other journeyed into what now is Armenia, Azargaijan, and part of Iran. We know little of the Iranian religion before Zoroaster. “We know, however, that the popular religion of the Iranians was pote the same as that reflected in the Vedas. The common people worshipped the powers known as daevas....” (Ibid., 465) Daevas represented per- sonifications of the powers and forces of nature—sun, moon, stars, earth, water, fire, and winds. The birth date and birth place of Zoroaster are also unknown. Es- timates range from 6,000 B.C. to 660 B.C., regarding the former. Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was born the third of five children toa “devout and learned 184THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH man named Pourushaspa” (Masani, 1962, 25), and to Dughdhva, a daughter of an Iranian nobleman. lume wrote: Later Zoroastrianism documents report many marvelous items in con- nection with the beginning of Zoroaster’s life. Prophecies of this great Saviour had been made 3,000 years beforehand, and also 300 years beforehand..,.The Glory of God (Ahura Mazda) was transmitted to ‘that girl who became the mother of Zoroaster’....lt_ ‘came down from the endless light, and mingled with the mother of Zoroaster,’ who was fif- teen years old at the time....Marvels connected with this very unusual unmarried woman were inexplicable to her family. (195) According to tradition Zarathustra received his early education from a tutor, assumed the sacred thread (kusti), which symbolized devotion to the religious life, was known for his compassionate nature, especially toward the aged, and left home at twenty to seek further religious en- lightenment. (Noss, 486 and Hume, 194)). At the age of thirty Zarathustra felt himself called into Ahura Mazda’s presence for purification and for appointment as a prophet. During the next decade he had seven addi- tional “conferences” with Ahura Mazda. (Hume, 195) He “avowed the urpose of Preaching a universal progressive religion and of convert- ing the wicked....He gave himself as a complete self-sacrifice to God....He preached the religion of the all-seeing God...” (Ibid.) One cold winter night after being refused shelter he was tempted “by the lying evil spirit to renounce the religion of Mazda, and to obtain tem- poral sovereignty.” (Ibid.) But Zarathustra defeated the temptations through prayer and worship. He was rejected by his own peers and by the nobles. He suffered not only discouragement, temptation, and doubt, but fared poorly with his preaching, gaining only one convert in ten ears. u A turning-point came with his conversion of King Vistaspa, his brother, his son, a counselor, and a grand vizier. Eighty others were also converted. The prophet married the daughter of the king’s counselor and there followed about fifteen years’ further promulgation of the faith after this great success at the Persian court. However, during the last twenty years of the prophet's life (age 57-77), he was somehow involved ina series of “Holy Wars.” According to Masani: After his religion had thus been firmly established, he passed away, at the age of seventy-seven, meeting the death of a warrior, in self-defence, while praying ina fire-temple. According to some authorities, he died in defence of the fire-temple which was attacked by the enemy....(31) Noss summarized the teachings of Zarathustra or Zoroaster as follows: 1, The call of the prophet by Ahura Mazda was valid and the result- ant faith was final and perfect. 2. Zarathustra worshipped but one deity: Ahura Mazda. 3. Mazda gained his results in many ways: through a Holy Spirit (Spenta Mainyu), as well as various modes of divine action (“Immortal 185Zoroastrianism Holy Ones” or Amesha Spentas). 4. But though Ahurza Mazda was supreme, he was opposed by an Evil One, the existence of which was not accounted for. 5. Each man’s soul also is the battleground between good and evil. The good man chooses right. 6. The ancient Aryan ritual was purged of magic and idolatry. 7. Good was to overcome in the End Evil. For the first time in a world religion, eschatology, the conception of ‘last things’ or the end of the world, comes into prominence. According to Zoroaster’s teachings, a general resurrection will take place at the end of the present world order. The good and evil will then be subjected to an Ordeal of Fire and Molten Metal. By this fiery test...the evil will be made known by their terrible burning, but the righteous will find the Fire kindly and the Molten Metal harmless....(476) The inclusive name of the scriptures of this religion is “ Avesta.” This could mean “knowledge” and thus be a parallel with the “Veda” of Hinduism. “The language is Avestan, cognate with Sanskrit. The extant remnants of a more extensive original Avesta are arranged in five main groups.” (Hume, 199) e earliest and most important section is the Yasna, meaning wor- ship or sacrifice. Included within the Yasna are the seventeen Gathas (Psalms) which contain Zarathustra’s teachings. (Masani, 31) Other sec- tions include the Vispered (invocations to All the Lords), the Vendidad (Law against Demons) which is a priestly code of ceremonial laws, the Yashta (Worship Hymns), and the Khorda-Avesta (Little Avesta), a de- votional handbook for common use. Important and later religious lit- erature was also produced. (Hume, 200) To sum up, Zoroastrianism can be succinctly defined as “the reli- gion of ethical dualism.” (Noss, 464) Good thought, good word, and ood deed are stressed. Three words sum up Zoroastrianism: BE LIKE OD. “Likeness to God is the only way of communion with the Heav- enly Father. There is no other path to Heaven.” (Masani, 89) God and Satan Ahura Mazda is described by at least seventy-four names in Zo- roastrianism literature. All point to his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. He is the Lord of Creation, the One Supreme Being, the Governor of the Universe, who will ultimately eee over evil. The Gathas present Him as the Living Active Existence, the Eternal Being, who can be perceived only in thought, but whose governance of the Universe is apparent to all, and who is ever to be served and adored. Zarathustra declared God (Ahura Mazda) revealed to him that the Deity’s first name was, “I am.” (Ibid., 38) He is Goodness itself. The six outstanding attributes of Ahura Mazda (which later became the Seven 186THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH Immortals or Angels) were “The Good Mind,” “The Best Order, or Righ- teousness,” “The Absolute Power,” “High Thought or Devotion,” “Per- fection,” and “Immortality.” ( Ibid., 43) But Good is matched by Evil in the universe. How is this compat- ible with the Supreme Goodness? The Sage of Iran furnished a solution of this mystery by positing two primeval powers at war with each other. One of these Principles is called Spenta Mainyu, the Beneficent Spirit, and the other Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit. There is nothing in the Gathas to show that both the spirits emanated from or were the operation of Ahura Mazda....The two Spirits...exist...in relation to each other; they meet in the higher unity of Ahura Mazda. (Ibid., 65) Masani further pointed out: Thus for the first time in the history of religion we see the philosophic doctrine of Eternal Polarism propounded by the Prophet of Iran, a doc- trine, which, far from inducing a belief in cosmic dualism, served to reinforce the belief in uncompromising monotheism, which was the key- note of his creed. (66) Zarathustra conceived Spenta ae as the son of Ahura Mazda, who occupied first place in the celestial hierarchy. It was through this son Zarathustra longed to approach Ahura Mazda, and through him human minds received illumination. (Ibid.) As for Judaism, G. Ernest Wright wrote: The dominant impression given by the Old Testament about God is the concreteness, definiteness, and energy of his being. His ever-present wer is to be seen and felt in all movement of nature and history....He is the ‘living God.’...Yahweh alone is the source of both creative and destructive activity. (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, 1956, 362) The conception of God as holy was that which distinguished the divine from the human. This belief “produces awe, wonder, and fear.” ( Ibid., 363) The dominant conception of holiness was not related to an irratio- nal, impersonal dynamism in nature: “instead it was controlled by the knowledge of God’s personal and consistent character and imparted by a those things in creation which he chose to separate himself.” id., The attributes of God (such as love or grace, justice, jealousy, an- er, and wrath) are drawn from the category of personality. Perhaps the est ee of the latter is embedded in Exodus 34:6-7 and quoted in other Old Testament passages: “Yahweh, Yahweh, a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abundant in hesedh (gracious loyalty to his covenanted promises) and 187Zoroastrianism fidelity, keeping hesedh for thousands, forgiving iniquity and rebellion and sin, though by no means acquitting the guilty...” (Ibid., 364) [We should note here the emphasis pen the gracious, loyal, and forgiving nature of God, which stands at the center of the Old as well as of the New Testament.] Judaism considered Yahweh as Creator of the universe. The Old Tes- tament assumes His being; no proof is attempted. God is also held to be one. “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, is one.” (Hertzberg, 1963, 29-46) Furthermore, God is moral. “He is the Lord of all the world, creating evil as well as good, but He desires the good.” (Ibid., 46) As for Satan, his emergence in Judaism as personified Evil is unclear. A fuller discussion of angelology and demonology follows below. Wright wrote: By New Testament times the doctrine of Satan with his principalities and powers of darkness had altered the situation which existed in Is- rael. The realm of Satan had openes the door to pagan demonology, with the result that the use of s] and exorcism became common among Jewish people, as did an elaborate mythology of angels and demons. The New Testament world was thus one of demon possession. (376) Did Zoroastrianism affect the doctrines of God and Satan? At best only a mixed answer can be given. A study of scholars such as Mills, Moulton, Zaehner, Masani, Noss, Hume, and Duchesne-Guillemin has turned up little if any evidence of Persian influence on the Jewish doctrine of God. The problem of Satan is another matter. Mills held that Satan and other parallel Persian-Jewish doctrines developed separately and spontaneously, though earlier in Zoroastri- anism (1913, passim.) Masani stated: “the conception of the Evil Spirit, which passed from the Jewish to the Christian re! igion, was...influenced by the belief in the existence of Angra Mainyu.” (20f.) Noss wrote: “certain Persian beliefs about Satan.....suy plied what must have seemed missing elements in the old Jewish beliefs.” (556) Hume claimed: ”...Sa- tan is not an original feature of the Bible, but was introduced from Zo- roastrianism.” (191) Hume noted a distinct change regarding evil after the Exile. He cited as evidence for this the substitution of “Satan” in postexilic I Chronicles 21:1 for “Jehovah” in preexilic II Samuel 24:1. Zaehner pointed out that the solution to the problem of evil found in the Manuel of Discipline of the Dead Sea sect of Quamran is almost exactly parallel that of Zoroastrianism. Both Holy and Evil Spirits de- rive from God, though Evil exists by choice. “The extraordinary like- ness between the Dead Sea Text and the Gathic conception of the nature and origin of evil as we understand it, would seem to point to direct borrowing on the Jewish side.” (1961, 51f.) Moulton admitted that the Persians gave hints to the Jews regarding Satan, but that the Israelites developed this doctrine in an original way. (1926, 326) Duchesne- Guillemin saw a rather precise parallel here and noted the change in Satan, who became the adversary of God during the period in question. He concluded: “It would be rash to deny that the example of the Iranian 188THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH Devil helped the Jews to transform the ancient prosecutor into God’s adversary.” (1958, 92) The scholars consulted thus tabulated as follows: 1. No or little influence of Zoroastrianism on the Jewish concept of God. Both are strongly monotheistic. 2. Considerable degree of Persian influence concerning Satan is evi- denced. a. Mills saw the Razallel concepts of Satan arising separately and spontaneously. They are twins. b. Hume, Masani, Duchesne-Guillemin, Noss, and Zaehner con- cluded that direct Jewish borrowing took place. c. Moulton took a middle path, admitting some Persian influence but was hesitant to deny that the Jews developed this concept in an original fashion. The majority of scholars studied conclude that the Jews definitely borrowed and ‘completed their own doctrine of personified Evil or Sa- tan. Angelology and peenaleey An array of good spirits and evil spirits are found in early Zoroas- trianism corresponding to angels and to demons. The good spirits are divided into the “Bountiful Immortals” (or “Seven Immortals”), which correspond to archangels in Christian theology, and Yazatas or angels. As we have also seen, the Bountiful Immortals were originally nouns denoting attributes or religious characteristics of Ahura Mazda. There also existed Fravarshis, heavenly counterparts or guardian angels of human beings. (Hume, 204f.) While Bountiful Immortals (Amesha-Spenta) numbered six and later seven, the Yazatas were legion. “Only about forty, however, are mentioned in the extant Avestan texts and the most prominent of these correspond to the twenty-four referred to by Plutarch.” (Masani, 49) Among the prominent Yazatas were Sraosha, the guardian spirit of hu- manity ,, Ashi Vanguhi, Holy Blessing, or Good Reward of Deeds, Mithra, who became dominant in Zoroastrian theology of the Later Avestan period, Atar, and Aredvi Sura Anahita. At the top of the hierarchy of good spirits is the “Bountiful Spirit” (Spenta Mainyu), the Beneficent Spirit. The latter is also referred to as Spenishta Mainyu, or “Most Bountiful Spirit.” Diametrically opposed to Ahura Mazda and the good spirits are Angra Mainyu and numerous evil spirits or demons. Alb the bad spirits are termed daevas, Angra Mainyu being the daeva of the daevas. Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit, introduced death and discord into the world. He taught his offspring, the daevas, “to mislead man through evil thought, evil word, or evil deed, and to lure him by his wiles to the ath of wickedness.” ( Masani, 66) It is important to note that: “The vil Spirit who disputes the kingdom on earth with the Holy Spirit...is the t not of Ahura Mazda but of Spenta Mainyu,” the Benefi- cent aot (Ibid., 69). 189Zoroastrianism Comments have been made above about the change in Judaism con- cerning Satan. Angelology was not unknown in earlier times, but de- monology appears relatively new. Let us see what certain scholars have said about this matter, also keeping in mind Wright's statement about an evolving elaborate angelology and demonology above. Noss contended that Persian angelology and demonology directly affected the Jews, who copied and completed their own vague concepts. (556f.) Hume very strongly suspected the Zoroastrian ideas concernin; angels and demons directly influenced the Jews. (191) Masani conclude flatly: “The Jewish Angelology and Demonology are...based on Zoro- astrian ideas concerning the Amesha Spentas, or the Divine attributes ersonified as Divine Intelligences; and the conception of the Evil pirit....” (20f.) Duchesne-Gullemin inferred a direct Persian influence. (51-53) Moulton split his vote on this by declaring Zoroastrian angelology definitely affected the Jews but that Persian demonology did not. (323, 325) Zaehner made no statement on this matter but Tike Duchesne-Guillemin implies real Persian influence in this area. (51ff.) Mills stuck to his thesis that Zoroastrianism gave point and body to loose Jewish conceptions. (37) Our tabulation at this point finds the scholars again indicate various degrees of Persian influence. The Doctrines of Immortality, Resurrection, and Eschatology Early Zoroastrianism displayed a full-blown and well-developed theology of immortality, bodily resurrection, and eschatology. Man was seen as life, body, and soul. The spiritual aspects of man preceded his physical aspects and therefore the former were undying. Man had free will and was able to work out his own salvation. The Omniscient Lord had planned things so. Exercising this freedom, man chooses between the principles of light and darkness, between truth and falsehood, between good and evil. Growing in mental vigor in the knowledge of the Law, he acquires the kingship of self-control. Placing his will in harmony with the Law, he is able to withstand the assaults of falsehood and wrong, and cultivating the attributes of Spenta Aarmaiti, benevolence, devotion, love, and so- cial service, he attains the best state of the Most Perfect and Beneficent Spirit. (Masani, 70f.) Beyond this practical side of Zarathustra ranges his eschatology; the doctrine of reward and punishment extends into the next life. “ man who chooses the truth is here rewarded by Ahura Mazda with spiritual as well as temporal benefits.” (Ibid., 71) Zarathustra held to the justice of God, who is engaged in bringing about a perfect world, which includes man. Masani concludes that Zarathustra is the first among the prophets of the great religions to espouse the doctrine of immortal life. (Loc. cit.) Man enters heaven or hell after death according to the way he lives on earth. The righteous souls who devoutly follow the teachings of Zarathustra go into heaven, “whereas those that have turned themselves away from the Path of Righteousness stand trem- 190THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH bling at this judgment span.” (Ibid., 72f.) Beyond even the hope of an individual future life there exists the coming glorious consummation for the whole of creation: The Gathas refer to a period when the present cycle of the world will be completed, the process of creation will cease, and the evolution of the Universe will have reached its destined goal. The world-process will then come to its final consummation as contemplated and ordained by Ahura Mazda at the dawn of creation. Then will arise the last saviour, Saoshyant. He will consummate the work of purifying and regenerating the world and completely removing every trace of the evil work of Angra Mainyu. All the souls of the wicked will be brought out from hell and lustrated and purified at the termination of their sentence. The souls of the righteous too will rise. There will thus be brought about the Ristakhez...the Resurrection. (Ibid., 75) Such a consummation will include the triumph of Asha, or Righteous- ness, over Druj, or wickedness, which also implies the final defeat of the Arch-Druj, Angra Mainyu. (Ibid.) Zoroaster that the consummation would come soon, even dur- ing his lifetime. Meanwhile, there existed between heaven and hell “an intermediate Place for those souls whose good deeds and evil deed ex- actly balance.” (Ibid., 74) This place (Hamestagan) made available an abode for such souls until the final judgment and later consummation. To sum up, Zarathustra held that the individual soul was immortal, that it was judged after death and assigned to heaven, to hell, or to Hamestagan, until the General Resurrection. At the Resurrection the Fi- nal Judgment was to take place and the righteous and the wicked sepa- rated. Then a flood of molten metal would be poured on the earth and roar through hell. All would be purified, a process painless to the good, but agonizing to the evil. Only goodness in all souls would survive and all would be in a state of heaven. It is important to remember that none of the final happenings could take place until the appearance of Soshyant, the last Messiah. (Noss, 487) He was to be born of a virgin mother. Universalism and heaven is the last word of Zoroastrianism. These doctrines of immortality, resurrection, and eschatology are unclear in Judaism at the time of the Exile and are a point of dispute at the time of Jesus. Hertzberg wrote: In the Bible itself the arena of man’s life is this world. There is no doc- trine of heaven and hell, only a growing concept of an ultimate resur- rection of the dead at the end of days. The doctrine of the resurrection was debated in post-Biblical times and the normative view became that held by the Pharisees, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. Concurrently the notion of judgment of the individual in the afterlife beyond the grave, his consignment to heaven or hell, began to arise. 5) Epstein wrote concerning the Torah: Jesus also believed the end was near, that there would be a Final Judgment, after the General Resurrec- 191Zoroastrianism tion, and consignment of those found worthy into eternal heaven and delivery to a final hell of those found unfit for heaven. What do some of the scholars say about Zoroastrianism and its pos- sible influence at this point? Hume strongly suspected Persian at this juncture. (191f.) Noss believed Zoroastrianism greatly affected Judaism in these matters. (557) Masani held that there was a crucial Persian in- fluence. (19) Moulton conceded Zarathustra “may have contributed something.” (329) Duchesne-Guillemin said: “...the dogma that the souls of the just will enjoy God’s company and that Paradise is an abode of light, a belief already taught by Zoroaster, does not appear in Jewish literature prior to the Talmud, Enoch, or the Psalms of Solomon.” (87) His implication was clear. Zaehner concluded: “From this religion too she learnt teachings concerning the afterlife altogether more congenial to her soul than had been the gloomy prospect offered by her own tra- dition..., teachings to which she had been a stranger before.” (21) Zaehner considered the Persian influence on the Judgment and heaven and hell as direct, but is not so sure about the matter of eschatology. (57f.) Mills held to the opinion that these doctrines were of separate origin and perelet development. (28) But Mills left the door partly open tosome influence by stating that the Persians probably exercised a pow- erful and secondary effect on Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (4) it Once more the majority decision points to considerable Persian in- luence. Miscellaneous Doctrines and Concepts As noted above, the name for evil spirit in Zoroastrianism is daeva. Hume claimed that the term “daeva” in later Persian became “diu,” which, in turn, became the origin of the English word “devil.” (205) The word “devil” can also be traced to the Latin diabolus and the Greek diabolos ( diaballein to throw across, to slander). TH. Gaster, writing in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, asserted: Satan was, to a large extent, simply a Judaized version of the Avestan figures of Angra Mainyu..., the inveterate foe of the supreme god Ahura- mazda...; or of Druj, the spirit of deceit. Indeed, almost all the salient features of the Iranian myth were boldly transferred to him. Of Angra Mainyu it was likewise said that he had brought death into the world {as noted above]..., and that the devas, or evil spirits, were under his leadership....He too was represented as the father of lies....(1962, vol- ume 4, 226) Then there is the word “paradise,” one of the last spoken by Jesus upon the Cross. This term (from pairidaeza, enclosure or wooded park) is clearly of Persian origin. Here is a vivid and obvious example of Persian influ- ence. The word achieved wide circulation, appearing in Hebrew, Ara- maic, and Greek. After much development in Judaism, starting with the belief the dead descended to sheol, the emergence of the doctrine of res- 192THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH urrection from the dead (see above), the abode of the righteous after resurrection as the Garden of Eden (or paradise), the furnace of gehenna as the corresponding place for the wicked, “paradise” came to be used three ways: (a) the original Garden of Eden of Gen. 2-3; (b) that Garden as the abode of the righteous; (c) that Garden as the eternal home of the righteous. This does not mean that there was more than one Paradise but rather that Paradise had three stages in its history. If fulfilled different func- tions in different periods. There was a notable lack of agreement as to the geographical location of Paradise during the second and third stages. For some it was on earth, for others in HEAVEN (cf. the ‘third ...heaven’ of Apoc. Moses 40:2, III Bar. 4:8; If Cor:2-3). (McArthur, 1962, The Interperpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, 655) This whole area of word study may well prove to be a fruitful source of indication of the relation among the three religions. Mills pointed out the following apparent literary relations between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. 1. Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is positively the Aeshma-daeva of the Avesta. Aesthma was the wrath-demon of Invasion con- tending with the Seven Spirits of the Gathas. 2. A “fall of man” is included in the successive expulsions...but we have also in the original Avesta.. a fall of man, as of spiritual beings, distinctively stated... 3. There could be some relation between the Seven Spirits in the Gathas, Zechariah 4:10: “Seven which are the eyes of the Lord, and which run to and fro upon the earth” — and an apparent expansion in Revelation 5:6——"And I saw in the midst of the throne a Lamb standing as though it had heen.slain, havingseven horns and seven eyes, which are the ‘Seven Spirits’ of God sent forth into all the earth.” (passim) One wonders, too, if there is any connection between the virgin con- ception of Zarathustra and the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth. In fact, the parallels between the two are striking: in addition to alleged supernatural births, there are the matters of youthful wisdom, early re- ligious bents, religious turning points at 30, preeminent responsiveness and fitness, The problems connected with apparent relations of the three religions are numerous indeed. The surface has only been scratched. Conclusion Asummary of what several scholars think of the probable influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and Christianity is in order. The follow- ing table contains the core of findings. A summary of the seven scholars clearly shows that their research and conclusions point to definite borrowing on the part of the Jews. 193Zoroastrianism GOD AND SATAN, GENERAL IMPRESSION ic oo & [Direct Persian | Probable direct} Probably direct | Definite 5 influence on Persian Persian doctrinal T |concept of influence. influence. borrowing by the Jews. Direct Persian Considerable influence. doctrinal borrowing by the Jews. Direct Persian influence. NOSS Direct Persian influence on Definite Jewish immortality, borrowing. resurrection only. Infers Persian influence. Direct Persian T influence on idea of Satan only. 8 Direct Persian 7 influence on 5 5 |Satan concept BB only. Infers Persian influence. Some Jewish Infers Persian borrowing. influence. % {Direct Persian | Direct Persian Extensive G_|influence on idea | influence. Direct Persian Jewish — $ of Satan only. influence. borrowing. Some Persian | Persian influence Hesitant to influence but on angelology but concede much original Jewish | not ondemonol- | Possible Persian | Persian development. ogy. influence. influence. 4 Parallel develop- | Persian influence | Parallel develop- | Separate 4 |ment. Secondary }on angelology but] ment. Secondary | development & [Persian not ondemonol- | Persian Persians helped influence. ogy. influence. to shape Jewish forms. The scholars are virtually unanimous that the Persian doctrine of the Evil Spirit influenced the vague Jewish concept of Satan. Related influ- ence on Jewish demonology and angelology is also suspect to various degrees. Definite Jewish borrowing is also indicated in connection with the related areas of immortality, resurrection, and eschatology. Five of the scholars hold some kind of Persian influence is evident to an impor- tant degree. The other two concede some Jewish borrowing, but do not believe it to be significant. The latters’ conclusions follow: It pleased the Divine Power to reveal some of the fundamental articles of our Catholic creed to Zoroastrians, though these ideas later arose spon- taneously and independently among the Jews....The Persian system must have exercised a very powerful, though supervening and secondary in- fluence upon the growth of these doctrines among the Exilic and Post- 194THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH Exilic Jews, as well as upon the Christians of the New Testament, and so eventually upon ourselves. (Mills, 4) Zoroaster’s doctrine of rewards and punishments, of an eternity of bliss and an eternity of woe allotted to good and evil men in another life be- yond the grave is so strikingly similar to Christian teaching that we can- not fail to ask whether here at least there is not a direct influence at work. The answer is surely ‘Yes’, for the similarities are so great and the his- torical context so neatly apposite that it would be carrying scepticism altogether too far to draw the obvious conclusion. The case for a Judaeo- Christian dependence on Zoroastrianism in its purely eschatological thinking is quite different and not at all convincing. ...(Zaehner, 57) Masani, who strongly advocates the view of powerful Persian influ- ence, quoted T.K. Cheyne: “A knowledge of this first religion is neces- sary to the full nen of an Old Testament scholar...it is no longer excusable to study the Old Testament religion without comparing Zo- roastrianism.” (Masani, 20) Noss stated: “,,.the Jews came to know Zoroastrianism from obser- vations near at hand in Babylonia, and certain Persian beliefs about Sa- tan, the angels, the afterlife and the Messianic Deliverer supplied what io have seemed missing elements in the old Jewish beliefs.” (Noss, 556) That Zoroastrianism has had some effect on Judaism and subse- quently on Christianity is hard to a in light of the foregoing. The scholars do not agree on the extent of Persian influence, but Jews and Christians should not fear study; discovery of truth can never conflict with Ultimate Truth or God. The Creator and Sustainer could very well have revealed some truth to Persians. After all, His Spirit works how and where He will. We should rejoice rather than cower at any extended and broader revelation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. The Western Response to Zoroaster, Lon- don, Oxford University Press, 1958. Epstein, Isidore. Judaism: A Historical Presentation, Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1959. Hertzberg, Arthur. Judaism, New York, Washington Square Press, 1963. Hume, Robert E. The World's Living Religions, New York, Scribner's, 1955. Masani, Sir Rustom. Zoroastrianism: The Religion of the Good Life, New York, Collier Books, 1962. Mills, Lawrence. Our Own Religion in Ancient Persia, United States, en Court, 1913. Moulton, James Hope. Early Zoroastrianism, London, Constable, 1926 Noss, John B. Man’s Religions, New York, Macmillan, 1949, 1964. Wright, G. Emest. “The Faith of Israel,” pp. 349-389, The Interpreter’s ible, vol. 1, New York, Abingdon Press, 1956. 195Zoroastrianism Zaehner, R.C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1961. Secondary Sources Jackson, A.V. Williams, Zoroaster: The Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York, Columbia University Press, 1898, 1928. Gaster, T.H. ” Satan,” pp. 224-228, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, New York, Abingdon Press, 1962. Kaufman, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1960. McArthur, H.K., “Paradise,” pp. 655-656, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol.3, New York, Abingdon Press, 1962 The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, New York, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953. Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2 vols., New York, The World Syndicated, Publishing Company, 1936. Reprint requests to: Rev. Lloyd R. Applegate 65 Delaware Avenue Ocean Grove, NJ 07756 Here We Go Again Iam moribund Hey, what's this? Tam comatose I kicked the bucket. Life has smacked me in the nose. I said “Out!” I said, “Chuck it!” Always the thorns You mean it’s not up to me Never the rose to say just when? May as well pack it in, I s’pose. You mean I gotta start all over again?! Should be good at suicide Like the teacher says Had lots of practice if you wanna be bright, Tried and tried. you gotta do it aqain— till you get it right! Well, see you around. Take care, my friends, I'll greet you when you meet your ends! written by: Devorah Ahavrah Gerzoff 22 Knollwood Drive, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 196Copyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing