Persian influence on Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Jerusalem, bible, quote)

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

There was an evil counterpart in earlier Israelite belief. The idea of corrupt or rebellious gods opposing the head gods go back into the second and third millennia BCE in Syria-Palestine and Assyria-Babylon. It's one of the fundamental ideologies of ancient Near Eastern cosmogony and theogony. The biblical satan was probably individualized to a large degree because of the influence of Zoroastrian dualism, but it was moving in that direction before the Persian period, and even within Zoroastrianism there were different ideas about the nature of evil and the deities involved. It's a bit of an oversimplification to say this entire concept was straight borrowed from Persia.

So was the Jewish thought of satan being an angel of G-d's court an earlier or later development? According to Jewish Rabbi's I've spoken to about this, satan was never a rebellious or fallen angel. According to the one's I've spoken to (all of the Conservative faction), this is the case. Would there be differences if I talked to Orthodox Rabbi's? I generally ask Jews about Jewish things as I think they are the best source for them and hope some of our Jewish friends will chime in.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

So was the Jewish thought of satan being an angel of G-d's court an earlier or later development?

Originally he was conceived of as one of the "Sons of God" (בני אלהים). These were the only members of God's council originally. Messengers (angels) were just attendant servants. It wasn't until around the beginning of the Hellenistic period that the two taxonomies were conflated and a tradition about rebellious angels developed (see, particularly, 1 Enoch). I discuss each process here and here.

Originally Posted by Fullback32

According to Jewish Rabbi's I've spoken to about this, satan was never a rebellious or fallen angel.

He was conceived of as a fallen angel in the Hellenistic period and within later Christian tradition, although modern exegetes advocate distinguishing "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14 from Satan, insisting that's not who it was intended to refer to. This is likely true, but from very early that's how it was understood, and it's only recently that that view has fallen out of favor.

Originally Posted by Fullback32

According to the one's I've spoken to (all of the Conservative faction), this is the case. Would there be differences if I talked to Orthodox Rabbi's? I generally ask Jews about Jewish things as I think they are the best source for them and hope some of our Jewish friends will chime in.

Jewish folks are obviously the best source about modern Jewish things, but when it comes to biblical Judaism they live quite a different religion, and dogmatism often gets in the way of being objective, just as it does with Christians and biblical Christianity.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

I generally ask Jews about Jewish things as I think they are the best source for them and hope some of our Jewish friends will chime in.

Fair enough.

I know the word 'satan' does come up in Jewish Scripture...but not necessarily as the name of a specific being. The word means 'accuser.'

For instance, a phrase in one of the prayers recited on Yom Kippur:

Heed thy pact
Heed not the accuser [satan].

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

Why is this CRITICAL juncture in religious history not explored/mentioned more? I find it rather interesting that when it comes to the Jews, their interaction with the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans get most of the attention primarily because of their wars and/or written hatred for those empires. Their scribes yearned to see the heads of Babylonian children smashed against rocks in their craving for revenge. They loathed the Greeks and their vulgar Hellenism, even going to war to resist Greek influence and infringement on their sacred beliefs. Their struggle against the Romans is well documented. Yet for some 170 plus years, the Jews were under Persian rule and it was rather quiet, peaceful and amicable, yet on the religious front, some interesting changes came into Jewish religious thought that shaped Judaism going forward and subsequently, Christianity and Islam.

Some say these changes began in the days of Ezra who supposedly came from Babylon under the blessing of the Persian king to teach the local people the ways of Persian religion (Zoroastrianism) and perhaps giving rise to the sect that would become the Parsi/Pharsi (Pharisees), a group that would become instrumental in the wars against the Greeks and very prominent in New Testament times.

The Persians seems to be the overlooked great people of the ancient world. Until the recent movie 300, it seems many people were even unaware they had an empire even larger than the Roman Empire ruled by exceptional kings well ahead of their time, notably, their first king, Cyrus. Of course the movie exaggerated things about them quite a bit, however.

Thoughts? Comments???

There must have been good reasons that many Jews had little interest in returning to their original homeland. Many stayed in Mesopotamia so that it became one of the most vibrant and influential centers of Jewish life, even though Jerusalem was the cult center of Judaism.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by kevxu

There must have been good reasons that many Jews had little interest in returning to their original homeland. Many stayed in Mesopotamia so that it became one of the most vibrant and influential centers of Jewish life, even though Jerusalem was the cult center of Judaism.

I think they were just comfortable there. A generation had passed, and the people who were middle aged when the Jews were allowed to return had spent their entire lives there. It's a bit jarring for someone to suddenly be expected to up and return to the ancestral homestead.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Because so little information is available about Persian religion.

Agreed and certainly interesting, isn't it?

They were under the hegemony of those rulers (and under the influence of their cultures) for much, much longer than under Persian culture. Additionally, we have much, much more information about them (largely in the form of texts).

With the exception of the Babylonians, no?

I wouldn't say they yearned for it. There's one text that says that. There are more texts that say the Israelites will eat their own children. This is all just rhetoric.

I view Psalm 137 as a collective sentiment of the exiled Jews in Babylon, hence my reason for stating that. I certainly would understand their resentment after the Babylonians probably did the same to their children during their invasion.

"O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!" (Psalm 137:8-9)

I wouldn't say it was to resist Greek influence. I would say it was to resist abandoning their culture. I think any nation has the right to fight to maintain that.

I would say it was a matter of both OR one led to the other. The uber-religious Jews scorned the lax, seemingly vulgar practices of the Greeks, not to mention their beliefs in multiple gods. This they resisted and as a result sought to keep their own youths from "falling away" to the influences of Greek Hellenism.

And it was largely the incompetence and apathy of the Roman governors in Judaea to crimes against Judaeans that led to the revolt. Rome holds the larger portion of the blame in that case.

Not denying this nor was I denying this. Occupations are not without some serious crimes against the occupied.

The majority were only in direct contact with Persian culture for less than 100 years, though.

The Persian Empire lasted about 200 years, no?

Persia also let their vassals continue their religious traditions unimpeded.

Correct and this is why I believe they received no (known) flack from the Jews. I believe this created an environment that allowed religious ideas to move back and forth.

What primary texts support this theory? The book of Ezra tells a completely different story.

The conspiracy theory here points to the odd mention of Ezra, a Babylonian Jew, returning to Judah to teach Jews their own laws. It seems rather redundant and it is made even more curious that Ezra was accompanied by priests (Jewish priests or Zoroastrian???) who had to interpret the words of these laws to the people. What laws could these have been that Jews had to be taught and also have it interpreted to them? (See Nehemiah 8). In addition, we read (in Nehemiah and Ezra) of mass conversions of Jews to Judaism??? Then there was the harsh command imposed on the Jews of the land to put away their foreign wives.

Zoroastrianism was actually just beginning to become the primary tradition in the empire around this time period. There's no real good indication that Darius I was a Zoroastrian. Missionary efforts are not well attested in the record, but I don't think there are any examples of sending representatives of other religions as missionaries for Zoroastrianism. I'm interested in where this theory comes from.

See above.

They were the פרושים, perushim, in Hebrew. The above seems to want to make it sound Iranian.

I see further down you mention Parsi being in India. Forgive me. I meant to write Farsi/Pharsi/Parsi. There may or may not be a connection, but the name and sound is strikingly similar and the Pharisee just seem to emerge out of nowhere after the Babylonian exile, gaining much recognition around the time of the Greeks.

The Sadducees were just as instrumental in the wars with the Greeks and were just as prominent in New Testament times. Both groups are thought to have developed around the same time period. How does your theory account for their genesis?

The Sadducees (Tsdoki) were a sect that harkened back to the teachings of Tzadok (Zadok) which I believe would be Old style Judaism as opposed to the new style Pharisees with their un-Jewish like concepts.

Imagine how the Mongols would feel. Their empire stretched from Korea to Scandinavia (largest ever), but how many of their emperors can you name off the top of your head?

Point made.

Zoroastrianism was actually just beginning to become the primary tradition in the empire around this time period. There's no real good indication that Darius I was a Zoroastrian. Of course the movie exaggerated things about them quite a bit, however.

Yup

Persian influence on Judaism and Christianity is an important topic, but unfortunately there's little information out there. This topic was most prevalent in scholarship around the middle of the 20th century. It hasn't been gaining much ground in recent years, but Robert Gordon's recent book The God of Israel has an interesting paper on it. Some other important publications are here, here, and here.

Sad though.

[Pappy&Me]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

This might be news you, but the story of Eden in the Bible was written around the time of the Persian Empire. That along with the rest of the Old Testament.

No matter when it was wrtten still there were angels .And since I don't know like you said, guess I'll take your word on it .

I've forgotten a lot but I may check up on this one .

[Pappy&Me]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

I would not deny that Thomas, but I think he was trying to imply that the story of Eden predates EVERY single civilization (assuming this was the very first drama on earth) and it includes angels sooooooo the idea of angels in Jewish theology was around long before the Persians so there was no borrowing from the Persians.

I could be wrong though.

First off ,I'm a SHE ,not a he. I'm also very busy with lots of stuff going in now so my mind is off along with my memory and i don't think it's just old age either .

I was saying celestrial beings have been a part of the Bible since the beinning . I also think the Israelites were kidnapped and taken to Persia or taken by Jeremiah, after most of the men were killed .

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

I have to disagree with this. Thompson and Lemche and Davies like to trumpet this position all over the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, but it's simply untenable in light of the archaeological and textual evidence. Few scholars in the mainstream accept their perspective, and I wouldn't recommend espousing it without a good grasp of the criticisms leveled against it by the majority position (some pre-exilic, some exilic, some post-exilic).

I'd like to hear the 'archaeological and textual evidence,' please.

Thanks

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

I'd like to hear the 'archaeological and textual evidence,' please.

Thanks

Fair enough. I'll hit some highlights, since it would take several volumes to go over it all. There are certain chronological anchors in the Hebrew Bible that give us a good idea when things were written. The frequent references to Philistia and the Philistines, for example, were likely written before the 8th century BCE, since they were subjugated by the Assyrians and then again by the Babylonians, becoming only a remnant of a people with no political autonomy. Before the Hellenistic period they disappear altogether. Archaeological evidence supports the biblical portrayal of the main Philistine cities of Gath, Ekron, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza. These cities were destroyed by the time of the Babylonian Exile. The information in the biblical cannot have come from the Hellenistic period. A potsherd with a version of the name "Goliath" was discovered at Gath in 2005. This doesn't show that Goliath was real, but that it was a legitimate Philistine name at the time period which the Bible places him (in Gath, by the way). The references to the Philistines in Moses' day and prior are anachronistic, however, since they only arrived in the Near East in the 12th century BCE, after the invasion of the Sea Peoples left them on the coast of Syria-Palestine.

Just last summer a Hebrew letter dating to the 11th-10th century BCE was discovered near the Valley of Elah that shows Israelite literacy and administration at work in the place where Saul and David were said to have fought the Philistines. There has been a lot of controversy over whether the nation of Judah was formed in the 11th-10th century BCE, as the Bible says, or in the 9th-8th century, as some archaeologists say (it was secondary to the northern kingdom according to this theory). The archaeology centers around the expansion of Jerusalem and the presence of a literate class with an administrative center. The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription is firm evidence for the latter, and secondary evidence for the former (since no other city presents itself as a viable administrative center from which the state may have been run). The biblical account of the foundation of Israel under the king David is also supported by the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the 9th-8th centuries BCE and clearly mentions the "House of David." The text also mentions historical events and figures known from the historical books of the Hebrew Bible. From this point on, chronologically, the main events narrated in the Hebrew Bible are unquestionably attested in the archaeological record and in cognate historical and ideological literature.

The table of nations in Genesis 10 lists 70 eponymous nations. While many of the names allude to nations that were around for many centuries, several represent nations that were either founded or reached their political peak between the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. I don't know of any cultures listed in Genesis 10 that were unknown until after the 8th century BCE. This places its composition squarely in the 9th-8th centuries. Other traditions seem to correlate, chronologically, with this portion of Genesis.

An Aramaic inscription found east of the Jordan River and dating to the 9th-8th centuries BCE tells the story of Balaam, a prophet who foretells the destruction of the land. The Balaam cycle from Numbers 22-24 draws from the same literary tradition and is likely roughly contemporaneous. A text from the 8th-7th century BCE discovered in Jerusalem mentions 'l qn 'rs, which is "El, Begetter of the Earth." A variation of this name is found in Genesis 14, which describes "El Elyon, Begetter of Heaven and Earth." The addition of "heaven" shows likely interaction with Assyro-Babylonian ideologies (where this merism is very common). The use of Elyon shows ties with older Syro-Palestinian ideologies, where El/Elyon was originally conceived of as distinct from Yhwh (later versions of the chapter would interpolate the name Yhwh). The participle qnh ("begetter") was changed by later priests to 'sh, "maker," when it was applied to Yhwh. I will present a paper on this verse at this year's SBL. You can read the abstract by searching for my last name here. Another paper I will present there has to do with Deuteronomy, which is also relevant to the current discussion. Deut 32:8-9 show another allusion to that original distinction between Yhwh and El, which unquestionably predates the exile. The rest of Deuteronomy is later, but is still early-exilic, since Deutero-Isaiah, which is late-exilic/post-exilic, quotes Deuteronomy frequently.

There's much, much more, but I think should suffice for now. While many of the early pericopes from the Pentateuch are likely embellishing legends and folklore, they're not far off the mark as far as to the cultural milieu, and by the time of Solomon and the subsequent kings the text is right on target with the historical events, even if it still adds a lot of ideological flourishes. I would put the skeleton of the Pentateuch and a good portion of its flesh (except Deuteronomy) in the 9th-8th century. Judges is likely from the same time period, but it also preserves some of the oldest Hebrew poetry in the Bible. The prophets are largely 8th-7th century, with Deuteronomy taking older traditions and crafting newer ones around them in the 7th-6th centuries (as well as redacting the Pentateuch). This was likely when the historical books were written (Samuel, Kings, Joshua). During the exile we have more redaction of the Pentateuch, Deutero-Isaiah, and many of the Psalms. After the exile we have more Psalms, more redaction, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles. After that we have books like Job and Daniel, and probably a few of the minor prophets.