Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

1362.0. "Also Sprach Sarathustra" by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER () Mon Jun 02 1997 19:58

I read an interesting piece on Zarathustra (Zoroaster) which implies a strong
connection between the development of christian scripture/traditions/doctrine
and Zoroasterism.  I thought it might be an interesting topic.

Ref: http://www.mantis.co.uk/sceptical/4zoroa94.html

Zoroastrianism: The Forgotten Source.     Stephen Van Eck

The composition Also Sprach Sarathustra by Richard Strauss featured in 2001 is
a piece of powerful drama, rich in majesty, awe-inspiring, and devastatingly
portentous. It is an appropriate memorial to the Persian prophet Zarathustra,
whom the Greeks called Zoroaster.

Zarathustra's influence on Judeo-Christianity and all of western civilization
is little known but should not be underestimated. His life and words changed
the nature of civilization in the west, setting it on a course that departed
from the static cultures of the ancient Middle East. Without his impact,
Judaism would be unrecognizable, and Christianity would probably have never
existed.

Western civilization owes mainly to Zarathustra its fundamental concept of
linear time, as opposed to the cyclical and essentially static concept of
ancient times. This concept, which was implicit in Zarathustra's doctrines,
makes the notion of progress, reform, and improvement possible. Until that
time, ancient civilizations, particularly Egyptian, were profoundly
conservative, believing that the ideal order had been handed down to them by
the gods in some mythical Golden Age. Their task was to adhere to the
established traditions as closely as possible. To reform or modify them in any
way would have been a deviation from and diminution of the ideal. Zarathustra
gave Persian (and through it, Greek) thought a teleological dimension, with a
purpose and goal to history. All people, he declared, were participants in a
supernatural battle between Good and Evil, the battleground for which was the
Earth, and the very body of individual Man as well. This essential dualism was
adopted by the Jews, who only after exposure to Zoroastrianism incorporated a
demonology and angelology into their religion. Retroactively, what was only a
snake in the Genesis tale came to be irrevocably associated with the Devil, and
belief in demonic possession came to be a cultural obsession, as amply
reflected in the Gospels.

Zarathustra claimed special divine revelation and had attempted to establish
the worship of one supreme God (Ahura Mazda) in the 7th century B. C., but
after his death, the earlier Aryan polytheism reemerged. Many other features of
his theology, however, have endured to the present time, through the religions
that eventually superseded it.

The Babylonian captivity of the 6th century B. C. transformed Judaism in a
profound way, exposing the Jews to Zoroastrianism, which was virtually the
state religion of Babylon at the time. Until then, the Jewish conception of the
afterlife was vague. A shadowy existence in Sheol, the underworld, land of the
dead (not to be confused with Hell) was all they had to look forward to.
Zarathustra, however, had preached the bodily resurrection of the dead, who
would face a last judgment (both individual and general) to determine their
ultimate fate in the next life: either Paradise or torment. Daniel was the
first Jewish prophet to refer to resurrection, judgment, and reward or
punishment (12:2 ), and insofar as he was an advisor to King Darius
(erroneously referred to as a Mede), he was in a position to know the religion
thoroughly.

The new doctrine of resurrection was not universally accepted by the Jews and
remained a point of contention for centuries until its ultimate acceptance. The
Gospels (Matthew 22:23 ) record that the dispute was still going on during the
time of Christ, with the Sadducees denying and the Pharisees affirming it. It
may be a mere coincidence, but note the similarity between the names Pharisee
and Farsi or Parsee, the Persians from whom the doctrine of resurrection was
borrowed. In addition to incorporating the doctrines of resurrection and
judgment, exposure to Zoroastrianism substantially altered Jewish Messianism as
well. Zarathustra predicted the imminent arrival of a World Savior (Saoshyant),
who would be born of a virgin and who would lead humanity in the final battle
against Evil. Jewish Messianism grafted these conceptions onto their
preexisting expectations of a Davidic king who would redeem the Jewish nation
from foreign oppression.

It was at this time, as a response to their captivity, that the era of
apocalyptic literature commenced in Judaism, based on Babylonian models and
patterned after their symbology. This was to have a strong influence on later
Christian thinking. With the key elements of resurrection, judgment, reward or
punishment, a Savior, apocalyptism, and ultimate destruction of the forces of
Evil, it can be concluded that Jewish and Christian eschatology is Zoroastrian
from start to finish.

The similarities don't end with eschatology either. A lot of the tradition and
sacramental ritual of Christianity, particularly Catholicism, traces back to
Zoroastrian precursors. The Zoroastrian faithful would mark their foreheads
with ash before approaching the sacred fire, a gesture that resembles Ash
Wednesday tradition. Part of their purification before participating in ritual
was the confession of sins, categorized (as Catholics do) as consisting of
thought, word, or deed. Zoroastrians also had a Eucharistic ritual, the Haoma
ritual, in which the god Haoma, or rather his presence, was sacrificed in a
plant. The worshipers would drink the juice in expectation of eventual
immortality. Finally, Zoroastrians celebrated All Souls' Day, reflecting, like
the Catholics, a belief in intercession by and for the dead. We should also
note that the story of the Magi, who were said to have visited the newborn
Jesus, resembles an earlier story of Magi who looked for a star foretelling the
birth of a Savior, in this case Mithras. Magi were not kings but Zoroastrian
astrologers, and the birthday of Mithras on December 25th was deliberately
appropriated by the church to be that of their Christ, whose actual date of
birth is unknown and undocumented.

Christianity may also have borrowed the story of the temptation in the desert,
since an earlier legend placed Zarathustra himself in that situation. The
principal demon (Ahriman) promised Zarathustra earthly power if he would
forsake the worship of the supreme God. Ahriman, like Satan when tempting
Jesus, failed.

A final interesting parallel is the three days that Jesus spent in the grave.
This concept may have been derived from a Zoroastrian belief that the soul
remains in the body for three days before departing. Three days would have
established death yet left his soul in a position to reanimate his body. As a
Messiah, Jesus functioned purely along Zoroastrian lines. While purportedly of
the Davidic line, he offered only redemption from sin, rather than national
salvation for the Jews. He was a world savior rather than a Jewish Messiah.
Jews did not recognize him as their Messiah, and in a real sense he wasn't.
Their Messianic expectations, which preceded any foreign influence, went
unfulfilled; in fact, their nation was ultimately destroyed. Neither did Jesus
effect a final triumph over Evil. This has been reserved for a second coming in
conjunction with the last judgment and the rewards and punishments of either
Heaven or Hell.

Although Zoroastrianism is almost extinct today, it lives on in its spiritual
descendants. Zarathustra, a prophet beyond any in the Old Testament, still
speaks today, unrecognized by his children.

    
    The Holy Scriptures were given by God, not Zarathustra.  It is clear in
    the Scriptures that at different times the Jews and all of those around 
    them, indeed the whole world, worshiped idols and false gods, included in 
    false religions, such as those proposed by folks such as Zarathustra.
    
    The only way to link Zarathustra and other worldly prophets to the
    formation of biblical religion is to presume that the Bible is not the
    Word of God but the development of men.  This is the presupposition of
    all those who see all religion as contructs of humanity.
    
    jeff

>    This is the presupposition of
>    all those who see all religion as contructs of humanity.

And some others.

People in all cultures have sensed God.  Some a little more
accurately than others.

Tom

    RE .1 (Jeff)
    
    Might God have used, in part, Zoroasterism as a "means" to deliver His
    word?  
    
    From other sources I've read, it's claimed that the Jews never actually
    wrote down the scriptures until the Babalonian captivity.  Might God
    have overseen the correct transcription of their verbal traditions
    onto paper (or papyrus :-)) by the use of an outside influence?   Might
    God have used Zoroasterism to fine tune what they were about to write
    down on paper, a means to iron out potential wrinkles in what He wanted
    to say?
    
    -dave

    
>    Might God have used, in part, Zoroasterism as a "means" to deliver His
>    word?  
    
    No, not according to the Bible.  God used the Jews as His oracle, no
    one else.
    
    >From other sources I've read, it's claimed that the Jews never actually
    >wrote down the scriptures until the Babalonian captivity.  Might God
    >have overseen the correct transcription of their verbal traditions
    >onto paper (or papyrus :-)) by the use of an outside influence?   Might
    >God have used Zoroasterism to fine tune what they were about to write
    >down on paper, a means to iron out potential wrinkles in what He wanted
    >to say?
    
    >-dave
    
    I don't think so.  There's every reason to believe that God is quite
    capable of achieving his ends directly.  The first five books of the
    Bible are called the Law of Moses and Moses died long before the
    Babylonian captivity.
    
    I think the similarities of some pagan thought and religion to biblical
    religion is due to what is described in the Bible as being clearly 
    evident in what God has made (the universe), primarily God's existence 
    and many of His attributes, truth being one of them.   
    
    jeff

    >There's every reason to believe that God is quite
    >    capable of achieving his ends directly.
    
    Agreed.  But did not God use the Babalonians to punish the Jews.  Even
    though God could affect changs without man, He used them anyway,  It's
    said that God spoke to the Jews through Moses, and Abraham and the
    prophets.  I suppose you might regard them as being mediators of a
    sort.  Would it be unacceptable to think that God might mediate his
    word through the concepts of a foreign culture, just as he mediated
    his displeasure using the army of a foreign nation?
    
    

>    >There's every reason to believe that God is quite
>    >    capable of achieving his ends directly.

Such reasoning might cause one to wonder why God didn't write the Bible
directly.

Richard

    >There's every reason to believe that God is quite
    >    capable of achieving his ends directly.
    
   > Agreed.  But did not God use the Babalonians to punish the Jews.  Even
   > though God could affect changs without man, He used them anyway,  It's
   > said that God spoke to the Jews through Moses, and Abraham and the
   > prophets.  I suppose you might regard them as being mediators of a
   > sort.  Would it be unacceptable to think that God might mediate his
   > word through the concepts of a foreign culture, just as he mediated
   > his displeasure using the army of a foreign nation?
    
    Don't misunderstand.  God certainly uses means to achieve His ends. 
    What I meant to say is that God was very specific and consistent in His
    means for revealing His word and will to the world.  God spoke not only
    to the Jews but to the whole world through the Jews (and their
    forefathers, of course).
    
    The nature of the Bible is that of special revelation.  While the truth of
    God's existence is evident to every man through the created universe
    God's requirements of men are not completely evident in creation thus
    we have been given a most wonderful revelation of God's will, His Word
    written down.
    
    From the biblical record there's every reason to believe that pagans,
    while comprehending God's existence through creation, are not oracles
    of special revelation and have not been used as such.
    
    jeff
    
    

    re .4 (Jeff)
    
    >I think the similarities of some pagan thought and religion to biblical
    >religion is due to what is described in the Bible as being clearly
    >evident in what God has made (the universe), primarily God's existence
    >and many of His attributes, truth being one of them.
    
    One of the claims in the excerpt in .0 says that the biblical
    concepts of demonology and angelology came from Zoroasterism.  It was
    also claimed that Zoroasterism introduced the idea of a bodily
    ressurection of the dead, a judgement to determine one's eternal fate,
    and the arrival of a world savior (born of a virgin) who would lead
    humanity in a final battle against evil.  These things would not be
    evident in the physical universe.
    
    The question I have is who came up with these ideas first, the Jews or
    Zoroaster?  I guess the evidence suggests that the Jewish scriptures
    weren't written down until after knowlege and possible influence of 
    Zoroasterism, but he (Zoroaster) may have "heard" of the Jewish
    religion before developing his philosophy.
    
    I need to read more on this.
    
    -dave