Judaism and the religions of Iran

[Devadatta]

Many people believe that certain aspects of Jewish tradition were fairly late developments and were borrowed from or heavily influenced by Iranian religion, especially Zoroastrianism. I'm referring of course to ideas of heaven and hell, demons and angels, ressurection of the dead, last judgement - i.e., eschatological and apocalyptic thought in general.

To what extent do you think this is true? Or is this simply incorrect?

[dauer]

Devadatta,

I think there has been some influence but some of the concepts to which you refer are not Jewish, primarily hell. Other concepts are of minimal importance to contemporary Judaism e.g. demons which even in the Talmud seem to be one explanation among many for certain types of events. To say that there has been no influence however, I think is wrong. I think it is due to the influence of Zoroastrianism and perhaps other religions that angels and the like developed into individual personalities.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by dauer

Devadatta,

I think there has been some influence but some of the concepts to which you refer are not Jewish, primarily hell. Other concepts are of minimal importance to contemporary Judaism e.g. demons which even in the Talmud seem to be one explanation among many for certain types of events. To say that there has been no influence however, I think is wrong. I think it is due to the influence of Zoroastrianism and perhaps other religions that angels and the like developed into individual personalities.

Hi Dauer. I have heard that modern mainstream Judaism in general tends away from these elements. What it be fair to say that this stuff had some importance in early phases? Say following the Babylonian exile throught at least to the beginning of the common era? Everyone's heard of the Essenes of course, and the formative influence their sort of theology had on Christianity. Were these elements sort of shunted into kabbalah and mystical traditions as Rabbinical Judaism developed?

[dauer]

Deva,

I haven't really read up on it enough to say. From what I have seen, it seems like early on there were some folk beliefs that were more popular but were not taken by the majority. There was, for example, astrology. As an example of demons, there's a discussion about leaving one's tefillin in the window of an outhouse and how they disappear. The opinion of one person is that demons that are around there steal the tefillin. Another opinion is, a bit more rationally, that they get stolen.

Some of those types of ideas eventually do get grouped more with mysticism but I don't know at what point in time that happened. Rationalism in Judaism goes back pretty far, but then so does mysticism.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by dauer

.Some of those types of ideas eventually do get grouped more with mysticism but I don't know at what point in time that happened. Rationalism in Judaism goes back pretty far, but then so does mysticism.

Thanks Dauer. But leaving aside the more tangential superstitious or mystical beliefs, there are the more important ideas about the afterlife and especially the resurrection of the dead.

The afterlife I understand doesn't get near the attention it does in Christianity and is not dogmatised but left more or less to individual and sect opinion. (Advantage: Judaism!) Nevertheless, the ideas are there, and the question is whether they are late additions. I know that in the torah you find references to the patriarchs "being gathered to their people", but I guess like many I find this fairly thin evidence for any serious belief in the afterlife.

On the other hand, belief in bodily resurrection is one of Rambam's 13 articles of faith and I understand it is still today the default position of Judaism. Do you think belief in the resurrection really was there near the beginning, or again is this an example of Iranian influence?

One other less serious question: I've seen some people assimilate "Pharisee" with "Parsee", claiming that opponents like the Sadducees used it as a term of derision pointing to the Pharisees’ belief in bodily resurrection. No doubt this is too much fun to be true. Although, one has to wonder consider how little is know outside the Christian writings about what role the Pharisees really played.


No doubt this is stuff you and BB have heard a hundred times before, so thanks for your patience.

[dauer]

Devadatta,

When you say near the beginning, it really depends on what you mean by that. I think of the beginning of rabbinic judaism as the beginning. I don't think we can really pick a point in history to call the beginning of Judaism unless it's arbitrary because I see it forming and evolving, and continuing to evolve for that matter.

In the Torah I don't personally see any clear evidence for an afterlife. In Nach there is some suggestion (e.g. Saul summoning Samuel) but the concept seems a bit different than the one that exists today. Resurrection of the dead is suggested in Nach as well. But the subject doesn't get a fuller treatment until later on.

One other less serious question: I've seen some people assimilate "Pharisee" with "Parsee", claiming that opponents like the Sadducees used it as a term of derision pointing to the Pharisees’ belief in bodily resurrection. No doubt this is too much fun to be true. Although, one has to wonder consider how little is know outside the Christian writings about what role the Pharisees really played.

Rabbinic Judaism is generally understood to be the heir to the pharisees. There is, iirc, only one place that uses that word specifically but I think that looking at the roots of rabbinic judaism is coming more into touch with pharisaic religion. I don't think Christian writings are a very good source because of their heavy use of polemic and the environment in which they were written.

I'm not one to say there wasn't influence but I would suggest it may not all be Iranian. I think there's a good deal of greek influence on rabbinic judaism. I also tend to view the origin of Judaism as a syncretism between two different types of religions: one agrarian and one shepherding.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by dauer

Devadatta,

When you say near the beginning, it really depends on what you mean by that. I think of the beginning of rabbinic judaism as the beginning. I don't think we can really pick a point in history to call the beginning of Judaism unless it's arbitrary because I see it forming and evolving, and continuing to evolve for that matter.

In the Torah I don't personally see any clear evidence for an afterlife. In Nach there is some suggestion (e.g. Saul summoning Samuel) but the concept seems a bit different than the one that exists today. Resurrection of the dead is suggested in Nach as well. But the subject doesn't get a fuller treatment until later on.



Rabbinic Judaism is generally understood to be the heir to the pharisees. There is, iirc, only one place that uses that word specifically but I think that looking at the roots of rabbinic judaism is coming more into touch with pharisaic religion. I don't think Christian writings are a very good source because of their heavy use of polemic and the environment in which they were written.

I'm not one to say there wasn't influence but I would suggest it may not all be Iranian. I think there's a good deal of greek influence on rabbinic judaism. I also tend to view the origin of Judaism as a syncretism between two different types of religions: one agrarian and one shepherding.

Hi again. When I said near the beginning of course I was talking about well before CE, at least back to the Babylonian captivity, which I understand by all accounts represented a decisive turn in the history of the tradition. But I agree that when you take an evolutionary view of things, it’s hard to point to precise dates.

As for the Greeks, certainly we are all aware of the inescapable influence of Hellenism, and what I think of as a reciprocal relationship between Hellenized Jews and Judaized (if that’s a word) Greeks. And certainly Greek rationality must have had a huge impact. One can talk about the mystery religions too, but then lots of people question the purely Greek origins of those traditions.

But what I’m curious about here – broadly speaking, eschatology, the afterlife – I think most would associate with Iranian religion and its characteristically sharp ethical and cosmic dualism. Zoroastrianism and Manicheaism are only two of most famous examples. There seems to be a distinctive mentality that we can chart historically, the way we can chart distinctly Chinese, Indian or Greek ways of thinking. It wouldn’t do to be overly simplistic about this, but I think it’s fair to say that particular ways of thinking take on recognizable shapes.

Why am I curious about this? I’m definitely not looking for an argument. It’s only that this kind of thinking, especially apocalyptic thinking and various flavors of Manicheaism have shaped so much of Western history, for good and for ill.

Specifically, for me the Iranian influence helps explain how ethnic Jewish monotheism was transmuted into the ideological monotheism of institutional Christianity and Islam. It seems to me that this whole stream of Iranian religion perhaps played a larger role than is generally admitted. And it makes sense to me, as we search for ways to tame the abuses and mitigate the dangers of absolutist ideology, that we develop a deeper understanding of its precise origins.

[dauer]

Campbell on the influence of Zoroastrianism (partially):

YouTube - Joseph Campbell - The Origin of Good and Evil