Talk:History of Christianity/Zoroastrianism

The Zoroastrian background
Someone has added this in twice recently. I know very little about Zoroastrian background, but it should be discussed here at least before being added along with some factual references (to wikipedia even) of why it should be considered a precursor to Judaism. My guess is that this is a POV - since it is added by an anonymous user, and that my memory is that Judaism grew out of the tribes of Isreal and their history of prophets (including Abraham and his fathers), and starting as an organization with the covenent Abraham made with the Lord. Of course that is POV too, but the Zoroastrian background should at the least be presented differently if it is notable enough to be included at all, and currently I am not convinced of its notablity in this context. Trödel| talk 15:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Christianity has four sources, which is plainly seen in the discussions about it from all interested parties. Egyptian, Holy Lander, Persian and Greek form the origins before the Romans got a hand of it.  The monotheist foundations are Egyptian(symbols, mysticism) and social rituals(diet, prejudices) are Holy Lander.  The political culture is Persian(laws, holidays) and the philosophical model is Greek(morals, archetypes).  From this basis, came the Romans' stratified structure and imperial government of Church and State, throughout the Mediterranean and into Europe.  The split of the Roman Empire into East and West with the eventual fall of the West produced the Schism and Crusades.  This was followed by the Black Death and Renaissance with Colonialism and Reformation as a result.  New Imperialism was accompanied by the Enlightenment, which brought World Wars and a Cold War.  This is the history of Christianity's components, in their major travails.  Borderer 18:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that leading off with the claim that "most concepts in Judaism and Christianity originated in Zoroastrianism" is a mistake and is POV. This is an extreme view.  Most would acknowledge at least some influence, and some would go much further, but this section gives too much weight to the more extreme views. Josh Cherry 00:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This "Zoroastrian" thing is simply speculation by a very few scholars, and nothing that's accepted by mainstream historians. At the most, we should say something like "Other early influences on Christianity possibly include Persian mysticism, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian religion, Australian rules football, and CBS Evening News." Or whatever. So ... shall we edit? Frjwoolley 23:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I say go ahead and edit. The Zoroastrian connection deserves mention but there's no reason to overstate it.  KHM03 01:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I say go for it. However, in the interest of NPOV you should mention all of the major networks. Josh Cherry 01:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Double this. Also it as the first section on the roots section is not right, especially considering A. The wider accepted theory is the Jewish section, and B. It's title starts with a "Z" and alphabetical order should take effect because it is a "fair" order when no other order can be determined without dispute. Thepcnerd 07:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly removed this section. If somebody knowledgeable wants to put in a balanced "Other Influences" section after the "Jewish Background" section, that would be fine. Josh Cherry 12:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Archaeologist David Rohl claims that the Garden of Eden as described in the bible has been located in northern Iran according to his article “Paradise Found” in The Jerusalem Report (February 1, 1999). His accounts of the discovery can be read in his book "Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation".


 * The origin of Christian baptism is of Persian origin as indicated in Le Mouvement Baptiste en Palestine at Syrie, J. Thomas, Gembloux 1935, page 417ff. "The rite of Zoroastrian initiation was baptism, by either blood, urine, or water."


 * Zarathustra, Philo, The Achaemenids and Israel by Lawrence H Mills describes the return of the Jews from exile due to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great. The fundamental claim is that Judaism is indebted to Persian and Zoroastrian kings.Aventura

The Persian kings are noted repeatedly in the old testament and Cyrus is a messiah in the old testament, the only gentile to be afforded that status. The 'King of Kings', a reference commonly seen in Christianity, is an originally Persian concept to describe the "ShahenShah" (the king of all kings). Cyrus the great, the great king of the Persian empire, was also the messiah of the early jewish religion.

Further evidence is the dating of biblical dates by the reigns of Persian kings. Isaiah's reference to monotheism, accepted as the first declaration of monotheism in the bible, corresponds in the same passaage to his declaration of Cyrus as the messiah (the annointed, the shepard of God).

This evidence is almost completely conclusive, that early Judaism was an imperial religion made to expand the Achaemenians' power.

Please do not remove the section.


 * I removed the Zoroastrian stuff from an anonymous user. It may deserve brief mention in a later part of the article...maybe.  The truth is that even the sources cited are hardly taken seriously by legitimate historians.  It would almost be like lifting up The DaVinci Code as serious history.  The Zoroastrian stuff is far too speculative, and there is ZERO scholarly consensus on it.  It doesn't belong in the "Roots" section; perhaps the anonymous user could develop an article supporting the perspective, and we could place a link to it somewhere on this page.  KHM03 30 June 2005 00:51 (UTC)

I'll be registing a name soon, but in the meantime, I'll use this user id. There is vast consensus that the eschatalogy of Judaism was adopted from Zoroastrianism. Judaism back then was not called "Judaism", and Zoroastrianism at that time was not called "Zoroastrianism". In fact it is arguable whether the people living in Israel, and the Achaemenian Persians in Iran, considered themselves 'Jewish' and 'Zoroastrian' respectively. These ideas came later and were imposed on history retroactively.

Moving on, as I said, there is vast consensus that the eschatalogy of Zoroastrianism was adopted by Judaism. Many of the words in the bible, like Saoshyant, are Persian origin (it became saviour in English).

Monotheism is likewise often noted to be a Zoroastrian influence, and I cite the bible itself as my supporting evidence. There is a vast amount of scholarly support for this viewpoint. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

I am putting the article back. If you believe it necessary for a change, discuss it in here first and we can consider the matter collectively.


 * By repeatedly re-inserting this section you are going against the clear consensus. This is uncivil editing behavior. Josh Cherry 30 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)


 * To anonymous user: Josh Cherry is correct...yours seems to be a minority opinion, and for you to continually re-insert it despite the numerous objections is against the wiki spirit. Convince us...then we'll all work together to make the necessary changes.  Just saying "I cite the Bible" isn't enough...show us the Biblical passages which point directly to Zoroastrian influence...not passages that may point that way; you need to be decisive.  I have read that monostheistic influences may have come from the Midianites, but were they Zoroastrian?  I have read that they were early Yahwists.  The scholars you have cited are not really mainstream historians or Bible scholars, so perhaps you could expand your source base.  Talk here first, I recommend, before making such seemingly spurious edits again.  Thanks...KHM03 30 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)

To Cherry and KHM03. It is well known that the Achemenians were Zoroastrian. Their names are repeatedly cited in the bible. They are the 'king of kings' when they are cited. Some example are Isaiah 45 and Ezra 7. There are many more.

The first, very first, declaration of monotheism in the bible is in Isaiah 45. This corresponds with the declaration that Cyrus is the messiah.

There is more.

In Ezra 1:1-3 you see a clear demonstration of Persian imperial propaganda:


 * Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, he is the God which is in Jerusalem.

You find parallels of this in Cyrus' declarations in Babylon:


 * I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, progeny of an unending royal line, whose rule Bel and Nabu cherish, whose kingship they desire for their hearts' pleasures.
 * When I, well-disposed, entered Babylon, I established the seat of government in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. Marduk, the great God, caused the big-hearted inhabitants of Babylon to...me. I sought daily to worship him. My numerous troops moved about undisturbed in the midst of Babylon.
 * I did not allow any to terrorize the land of Sumer and Akkad. I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well being. The citizens of Babylon... I lifted their unbecoming yoke. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes.
 * At my deeds Marduk, the great Lord, rejoiced, and to me, Cyrus, the king who worshipped, and to Cambyses, my son, the offspring of my loins, and to all my troops, he graciously gave his blessing, and in good spirit is before him we/glorified/exceedingly his high divinity....

Furthermore, if you read Cyrus' account of ruling of Babylon, he took the hand of the statue of Marduk when he entered the city. Marduk was pleased. Cyrus does the same thing in the bible: Isaiah 45 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden," etc. I don't want to try to prove this to you, because this isn't the place for it. All I have to demonstrate is that there is an academic consensus of Judaism adopting Zoroastrianisms' eschatalogy and a lot academic support for the theory that Judaism adopted monotheism from Zoroastrianism.

Here are the references:

FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA : "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium

"Now it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme." From The Gnostics and Their Remains (London 1887) by King and Moore quoted at 607a in Peake's Bible Commentary

1.Christian baptism had a Persian origin - see Le Mouvement Baptiste en Palestine at Syrie, J. Thomas, Gembloux 1935, page 417ff.

2.Zoroastrianism, a Shadowy but Powerful Presence in the Judaeo-Christian World, Mary Boyce, London, 1987.

3.Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b.

4.The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, NY, 1875, volume II, pp. 296, 297.

5.A Study of History, Reconsiderations vol XII, Toynbee A., Oxford, 1961. page 429. ibid, page 417. 7. A History of God, Karen Armstrong, NY 1993, page 23.

6.The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Eiselen, Lewis, and Downey ed, NY, 1929, p 269. Interpreter's Bible, page 303.

7.A History of God, Karen Armstrong, NY 1993, page 52.

8.The Gnostics and their Remains, C.W. King and G.F. Moore, London 1887, page 120.

9.Jesus and the Pharisees, D.W. Riddle, page 3.

10.The Mothers, Robert Briffault, NY 1927, vol 3, page 331.

11.Judaism in the New Testament Period, Herford, London 1928, p213.

12. Encyclopedia America, Danbury, CT, 1988, vol 29, pp. 813-815, article by J. Duchesne-Guillemin

13.Zarathustra, Philo, The Achaemenids and Israel, Lawrence Mills, Leipzig, 1903

14.The Mysteries of Mithra, Franz Cumont, Chicago, 1903


 * Thank you for the details, anonymous user, but the point of view that Zoroastrianism was a key Christian influence is still a minority opinion. Now, if you want to use some of this material to argue that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, you are welcome to do that.  But Christianity was influenced by Judaism first and foremost (with Greek philosophy & Mediterranean mystery religions also playing roles); any Zoroastrian influence was felt only through Judaism.  Try editing the Judasim page first...that's my advice (I'm also curious why you haven't done so already, considering that your argument is basically that the Zoroastrian faith influenced Judaism, not Christianity).  KHM03 30 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

If it is a Jewish influence, by consequence it is a Christian influence. I disagree that it is a minority opinion. It is a majority opinion in the scholarly community. It is not much discussed simply because Zoroastrianism does not have the 1) interest and 2) political support of other religions at the moment, but scholarly it is considered a major influence of the Judaism and Christianity.

I am focused first on Christianity, and don't want to get into too many subjects while this is still being debated. I want to deal with one subject at a time.


 * Anonymous user: You admit that it is an influence in Judaism...then make the argument there...if Zoroastrianism so influenced Jewish eschatology, then make the point on the appropriate page for Jewish eschatology...not Christianity. There are many ideas which influenced Judaism and subsequently Christianity (or Islam, etc.)...but this is not the page to deal with those.  Christianity was influenced by JUDAISM...if Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, then make your claims on the Judaism page!
 * Your opinion is a MINORITY opinion in the scholarly community. You have not cited any well known historians or mainstream scholars.  Your saying so does not make it mainstream.  Four years of seminary (in a mainline liberal school) and Zoroastrianism was mentioned ONE DAY as far as I can recall...hardly a major point.
 * Go to the Judaism page first. Again, if your claim is that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, then it would seem to me that your only intention here is to sow discord.  Make your claim on the appropriate page.  Even if you are correct, then Zoroastrianism is only a Christian influence by default, because of its influence on Judaism.  Do this appropriately.  KHM03 1 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

KHM First of all, there is no rule that I have to edit the Judaism page first, before I contribute to the Christianity page. There is absolutely no rule that says that. Zoroastrianism affected Christianity just as much as it affected Judaism, because many of the Zoroastrian Mithraic traditions passed on to Christianity that did not pass on Judaism (i.e. the virgin birth of a saviour).

FURTHERMORE, the view I am supporting is not a minority view. Respected scholars verify that the entire eschatology of Judaism and Christianity was adopted from Zoroastrianism. It is not much discussed only because Zoroastrianism does not have a large following and therefore it lacks the 1) interest and 2) political support of the other organized religions right now.


 * You speak as if this is not disputed! I suggest you read WP:NPOV. I also suggest that if you wish to make the assertion that Zoroastrianism is at the root of Christianity because it was at the root of Judaism then you add it to the Judaism article! I'm sure that you'll find that experience to be... interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)


 * But you've admitted that the absolute heart of your argument is that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism...and then, later, because of that, Christianity. Your opinion (which is a minority view...right or wrong, that's the simple reality) ought to be hashed out on the Judaism page first, since that's essentially what you are claiming.  I am all for getting more opinions, and going with the consensus; that's the wiki way.  Anyone else have a take on this?  KHM03 2 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03, Zoroastrianism is more properly discussed as related to Judaism not as a "root" of Christianity. The influence of Zoroastianism on Judaism (and vice versa) is a valid scholarly debate. However, it's relationship to Christianity is overstated by its proponents and indirect at best. I feel strongly that it should be addressed under Judaism, not here in the history of Christianity.

But to the question, Did the Jews borrow from Zoroastrianism? According to one source, there is no direct evidence either way; the Persians may have got some of their ideas from the Jews, and from Ezekiel or Daniel. There are general ideas they have in common, but in terms of borrowing, no evidence exists -- one way or the other, and a determination depends on the interpretations and datings of Zoroastrian texts (which is highly debated). Zoroastrian scholars offer no consensus on the subject [Yamauchi, Edwin. Persia and the Bible (Baker, 1990) p. 461]. Yamauchi cites one Zoroastrian scholar who believes that the Jews borrowed, another that says there is no way to tell who borrowed, and yet another who says that the borrowing was the other way. Regards, Jim Ellis July 2, 2005 16:56 (UTC)


 * It is evident beyond a reasonable doubt that Judaism borrowed from Zoroastrianism and not vice versa. The Zoroastrian kings were in a position of power, and were therefore likely to influence the subjects, not vice versa.  No where in any Persian Achaemenian reliefs does it mention the Hebrew tribes.
 * The only place that mentions the two groups together is the bible, where Cyrus is declared the messiah, and other Persian kings are poured praise upon. Ezra (Zoroaster?) is the 'courtier to the Persian king' in the bible, and is sent by the king to open a temple for him.  The Persian imperial family sends carts of gold to Judea to build this temple.  Unless we take a religious view, this was a clearly for their own interest, and not for some religious group.  It is evident that the Zoroastrian kings influenced the tribes that became the Jews, and not vice versa.
 * Many scholars agree. Look at the links and sources I provided.  - Amin123


 * As long as we're using the Bible as our primary text and speculating based upon it, let me suggest that figures like Daniel, Esther and perhaps other Hebrew advisors gained enough favor in court to actually influence Persian religion and politics. I'm curious how you manage to read the Bible as history (accepting its story of the Persians sending gold to Judea to build a temple), yet also reject a religious view of what happened as a matter of course, when I think most people would agree the Bible is a religious text?
 * Also, it appears clear that any influence of zoroastrianism upon Christianity was indirect, and came either through Judaism or through various mystery religions, according to, well, you. Before you can establish a zoroastrian influence, you first have to establish the mystery religion and judaism influence. Even those relationships are well contested. Wesley 3 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)


 * How would Daniel, Esther and other advisors suddenly gain such favour? THAT is religious view, and not a rational political one.  The Hebrews are never mentioned in the any Persian texts from the Achaemenian times.  When they were supposedly released from captivity in Babylon by Cyrus, how do you suppose Hebrew scholars suddenly convinced Cyrus the Great of Persia to build them a temple in Judea?  Let's not stretch reality.  It is clearly evident that Cyrus built the temple and sent the advisors for Achaemenian political reasons, and not because he was influenced.
 * As far as the Bible being a religious text. Well yes of course, but is has some aspects that prove certain people were involved in its creation.  The inclusion of Cyrus as a messiah, and the dating of biblical events by the reigns of Persian kings is an example of evidence showing what the influences in the creation of the bible are/were. - Amin123


 * This sounds like speculation based on premade religious conclusions, rather than actual research. Your conclusions are only clearly evident if one starts with your religious assumptions, and selective acceptance of source material. I wonder if that's why this is still considered a fringe view in academia? Wesley 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)


 * This is assumption based on evidence. How is this not actual research?  Is the bible not primary evidence?  The views espoused here are widely accepted by scholars who write about this.  If you look in the encyclopedia americana, you will see this view as well. - Amin123


 * (I am assuming here that Amin123 is the previously anonymous user who began this debate.) Amin123, you write that, "The views espoused here are widely accepted by scholars who write about this."  That's like saying that "The DaVinci Code is widely accepted by Dan Brown." Or "Mormon theology is widely accepted by Mormons."  OF COURSE the folks who support these ideas support these ideas.  BUT, these are not mainstream Biblical scholars, nor the top historians out there.  As Wesley stated, this is still a "fringe view in academia."  You can't change that fact, and it's difficult to move forward in the discussion before you acknowledge that simple truth.  They are a minority opinion, and, while minority opinions need to be looked at nonetheless, we need to remember that it is so.
 * You write, "It is evident beyond a reasonable doubt that Judaism borrowed from Zoroastrianism and not vice versa." But that is not so.  "Reasonable doubt" seems to exist all OVER the place, judging by this discussion, if nothing else.
 * You write, "The Zoroastrian kings were in a position of power, and were therefore likely to influence the subjects, not vice versa." You suggest here that minorities can't affect the "ruling class".  Historically, we know that's untrue.  The 1960s counterculture was never more than a minority (by definition), but went on to have an enormous impact on American culture and politics.  More importantly, look at American minorities such as African-Americans, Latinos, or Jews.  All have a great deal of impact and influence in the national political and cultural arenas, despite their minority status (and, in my view, that's a good thing).  So, your theory that minorities can't affect the ruling class is untrue.  And if you are correct, then the minority opinion that Zoroastrianism had this great deal of influence on Judaism is dead in the water.
 * You seem to be very passionate about this subject, and that's fine. But you also haven't convinced the other users of wikipedia that your view is correct.  My suggestion, again, is to fight this battle first on the Judaism page, for you are arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and only then Christianity.  Gain a foothold there, get some support from others, and then return and see if the tides have changed.  That's my suggestion.  KHM03 3 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)


 * "you write that, "The views espoused here are widely accepted by scholars who write about this." That's like saying that "The DaVinci Code is widely accepted by Dan Brown.""

No it is not the same at all. There is no comparison between the theory of Judaism borrowing important concepts from Zoroastrianism and the 'Da Vinci Code'. No comparison at all and no where the same level of academic consensus.


 * "Or "Mormon theology is widely accepted by Mormons." OF COURSE the folks who support these ideas support these ideas.  BUT, these are not mainstream Biblical scholars, nor the top historians out there."

You can't compare a RELIGIOUS view to a scholarly view with definitive evidence supporting it. That's a fallacious analogy.


 * "As Wesley stated, this is still a "fringe view in academia." You can't change that fact, and it's difficult to move forward in the discussion before you acknowledge that simple truth."

This is not a fact. There is a consensus that Judaism adopted Zoroastriam's eschalatogy. Furthermore, there is a vast amount of support and evidence for Judaism getting the concept of monotheism from Zoroastrianism during the two religions' coexistence during the reign of the Achaemenians.


 * "They are a minority opinion, and, while minority opinions need to be looked at nonetheless, we need to remember that it is so."

They are a majority view among scholars, and simply not much talked about because Zoroastrianism does not have the 1) interest and 2) political support of the other religions at the moment.


 * "You write, "It is evident beyond a reasonable doubt that Judaism borrowed from Zoroastrianism and not vice versa." But that is not so.  "Reasonable doubt" seems to exist all OVER the place, judging by this discussion, if nothing else."

What's the reasonable doubt? That rather than Cyrus building the temple for a captive group's benefit with no benefit to himself, he built it for his own benefit for political reasons? That rather than God coming down and telling the priests that Cyrus was a messiah, that there were political reasons for why he was labelled such?

Where's the reasonable doubt? Unless you take a religious view, there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Judaism's creation was heavily influenced by the Zoroastrian Achaemenian Kings. This device is for verifiable facts, not religious views.


 * "You write, "The Zoroastrian kings were in a position of power, and were therefore likely to influence the subjects, not vice versa." You suggest here that minorities can't affect the "ruling class"."

I didn't suggest minorities cannot affect the "ruling class". Read what I wrote. I wrote a "subject tribe" were very unlikely to influence the "ruling tribe", and not vice versa.


 * "Historically, we know that's untrue. The 1960s counterculture was never more than a minority (by definition), but went on to have an enormous impact on American culture and politics."

This is where your argument becomes illogical. You cannot compared the minority of the civil rights movement, to the minority of the Achaemenian period. I said the 'subject tribe' are less likely to influence the 'ruling tribe'. Jews, blacks and women were not a 'subject tribe' in the 1960's. They had spent a century gaining rights by the time the 1960's came around. You want to compare this sizeable and influential group to a group that had just supposedly been RELEASED FROM CAPTIVITY? That is a horrible analogy. You want to support the theory that Cyrus was so influenced by a tribe that his armies had just release, a tribe he never mentioned in any Persian Achaemenian reliefs, that he decided to build a temple for them? That is less a rational view than a religious-centric view. Contemplate on how farfetched it is. Thank you.


 * "More importantly, look at American minorities such as African-Americans, Latinos, or Jews. All have a great deal of impact and influence in the national political and cultural arenas, despite their minority status (and, in my view, that's a good thing).  So, your theory that minorities can't affect the ruling class is untrue."

My theory was NOT that minorities can't affect the ruling class. My theory was that a 'subject tribe' cannot affect a 'ruling tribe'. The other groups in the US are hardly subject tribes of any tribe. If anything, Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the United States socio-politically.


 * "And if you are correct, then the minority opinion that Zoroastrianism had this great deal of influence on Judaism is dead in the water."

No it isn't.


 * "You seem to be very passionate about this subject, and that's fine. But you also haven't convinced the other users of wikipedia that your view is correct.  My suggestion, again, is to fight this battle first on the Judaism page, for you are arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and only then Christianity.  Gain a foothold there, get some support from others, and then return and see if the tides have changed."

Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity just as much as it influenced Judaism, so either one is ok. I can only discuss one thing at a time so I'll stay on this for now.

-Amin123

The Zoroastrian background, part two
inserted this header as discussion is getting ungainly to both navigate and section-edit --Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this discussion via WP:RFC. The top-shelf academic research I've read does mention Zoroastrianism as an important influence on ancient Judaism (my sources: this guy in person and this guy's books). The immediate Jewish history (Alexander the Great and later) had a much larger role in setting the context for the so-called Jesusbewegung (pre-institutionalized proto-Jewish-Christianity) to coalesce into Apostolic Fathers-era Christianity (as fully distinct from post-Second Temple Judaism). It's not a safe bet to say that Zoroastrian elements (monotheism, a savior figure, an evil figure) gave rise to those elements in ancient Judaism, though. J may be descended from Z, or J and Z may be "siblings" both descended from unknown X. This is similar to a lot of the sourcing problems with early Christian writings... similarity and chronological order don't necessarily mean direct descendence. Feco 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)


 * The overarching point, though, is that Amin123 suggests that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. So, then, why argue that on this page?  Argue it where it ought to be argued...the page for Judaism.  To do anything else is disingenuous and suggests that we have a user more interested in causing dissension than truth.  KHM03 7 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)


 * I think it's worthy of mention. Amin123 has not necessarily gone about the debate in the best way, but I think he does have a valid point on some counts. I found it rather interesting that Zoroastrianism 'looked' very Christian in certain respects. Although any influences were almost certainly indirect (via Judaism), the salience of some Zoroastrianist elements in Christianity is higher than in Judaism. Since a user casually browsing to this page will not necessarily go back to Judaism to read a full background, I belive a mention is worthly here. Someone looking for Christian history is likely to be interested in the (probably) first monotheistic religion with many themes that also appear in Christianity. Possible text along the lines of: Christianity emerged out of Judaism, which at the time reflected influences from X, Y, and Zoroastrianiam. Certain elements of Christianity, such as X, Y, and Z are suprisingly similar to elements in Zoroastrianism. Since direct influence by Zoroastrianism on Christianity is unlikely, scholars are unsure if the similarities emerged via early Christianity's shifting emphasis on older Zoroastrian-influenced Jewish elements. It is also supposed that the similarities emerged largely by chance. Feco 7 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)


 * Are these similarities so "surprising", neutrally speaking? Looked at in their context, the points of similarity are not very striking at all, in my opinion.  But lifted from their context, and compared with elements similarly lifted from another source, the similarities can be made to appear amazing.  They aren't surprising, if it's supposed that these parallels are purposefully exaggerated.  Mkmcconn (Talk)


 * It is valid to bring the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism onto this page since Christianity came from Judaism. It makes perfect sense. runnigan July 7 2005 22:45


 * Regarding this; "Someone looking for Christian history is likely to be interested in the (probably) first monotheistic religion with many themes that also appear in Christianity. Possible text along the lines of: Christianity emerged out of Judaism, which at the time reflected influences from X, Y, and Zoroastrianiam. Certain elements of Christianity, such as X, Y, and Z are suprisingly similar to elements in Zoroastrianism. Since direct influence by Zoroastrianism on Christianity is unlikely, scholars are unsure if the similarities emerged via early Christianity's shifting emphasis on older Zoroastrian-influenced Jewish elements. It is also supposed that the similarities emerged largely by chance."


 * I think that the fact that Cyrus is a messiah in the old testament, and that the Persian kings funded the rebuilding of the temple, make idea that the similarities are by chance very farfetched. Amin123 July 7, 23:10


 * That's a nice little illustration of how this sort of thing is done. The decree of Cyrus returned Israel to the Land - shall we not call him a "messiah", then?  The Zoroastrian kings, speaking Imperial Aramaic, rebuilt the Jewish temple: isn't it obvious that their religion fashioned the Jewish religion?  It shows very well how this is done. And, it also shows that, we see what our faith demands that we must see, and we don't understand those who cannot see it. Mkmcconn (Talk)  8 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
 * Clarification: What I mean is, that what this illustrates is how people invent connections and influences by following the lead of their reasonable suppositions. But it is speculative, nevertheless.  Scholars also speculate, based on the facts they find.  They are scholars when the collect the facts.  They are not any more of an expert than anyone else, when they speculate. Mkmcconn (Talk)  8 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's much like a Self-fulfilling prophecy. They pray and hope for some sort of rectification, and lo and behold their plight is (eventually) solved, and they get their freedom and their temple and whatnot. But even more than that it's a Catch 22 situation (not the right metaphor in retrospect, I forget which one I was thinking of), in that they get everything they asked for all at once (rather than some now, some later, and some never), making it all the more wondrously miraculous to them. Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

The Zoroastrian background, part three
inserted this header as discussion is getting ungainly to both navigate and section-edit --Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * The main points remain:
 * Zoroastrianism's influence on Christianity is disputed by some (most) of the most accepted, mainstream scholars on earth. Books have been cited, but for the most part from rather obscure "authorities".  Where's Brueggemann?  Bernhard Anderson?  Donald Gowan?  Bright?  Albright?  These and others are nowhere to be found.  The influence is primarily maintained through the religious convictions of Amin123, and not through reputable, accepted scholarship.  It's disputed, strongly, and an NPOV wikipedia cannot allow it.
 * According to Amin123's own arguments, Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity only through its influence on Judaism. I have virtually begged Amin123 to make this point on the Judaism article, which contains not one reference to Zoroastrianism, but he has flatly refused.  This approach would be the most effective even in establishing his own argument, yet he refuses.  He seems to be a user more interested in bringing discord than in establishing a truthful article.  I sincerely hope that he proves me incorrect on this.
 * Given these points, the article needs to stay as is, without the Zoroastrian references, in my view. If this passionate user is able to establish a scholarly beach head, either in mainstream academia or even on wikipedia's own Judaism page (not that I'm equating the two), then perhaps we can make some considerations and proper edits.  Until then, it's just Amin123's hopes and dreams.  KHM03 8 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Some main stream scholars and sources HAVE declared that Zoroastrianism had a profound effect on Judaism and Christianity. The Encyclopedia Americana for example states;

''"First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium''

KHM03, this is a logical and accepted view, that Zoroastrianism influenced all Abrahamic religions.

As far as your point about editing Judaism first, I have already told you that I want to deal with one topic at a time. Christianity mirrors Zoroastrianism more than Judaism does, because many of the Zoroastrian themes reappeared in Christianity, in particular the focus on the saviour (Pers. Sayoshant).

There is alot of support in this discussion for including Zoroastrianism, and considering how much the Zoroastrian Persian Kings are mentioned in the Old testament, and considering they funded the rebuilding of the temple, and considering they sent advisors (i.e. Ezra) to teach the people the laws of God, and considering Cyrus the great, the creator of the Persian empire, was the messiah in the bible, Zoroastrianism belongs in this article. Amin123 July 8, 2:52 PM, 2005


 * I must say I really cannot understand you. You have an incredible amount of knowledge about the topic, and it's all very impressive, sure... but I still don't see what Judaism's influences has to do with influences on Christianity. Sure Zoroastrianism/Mithraism may have influenced Judaism, but Christianity only got that influence as an "aftershock" via Judaism.
 * Now if you could show strong evidence that the Roman Mithraism had influenced early Christians (which some evidence alludes to) then that would be a good point to include in the article, yes indeed!
 * As it is, this article merely summarises what Christianity got from Judaism, whereas putting Zoroastrianism/Mithraism in its own mini-section makes it sound as if it was just as influential as Judaism--but it wasn't, because it was Judaism in turn that provided Christianity with Zoroastrian/Mithraism-like doctrines deities etc. Please understand this, Zoroastrians had no direct influence on Christianity, and, if anything, the watered-down Roman Mithraism would have been the only way for Zoroastrian to make any direct impact on Christianity.
 * IMO of course :) Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Master Thief Garrett, Zoroastrianism had a DIRECT effect on Christianity as the old testament, a text heavily influenced by Zoroastrainism and Zoroastrian Kings, is part of Christianity. Furthermore, many themes adopted by Judaism from Zoroastrianism, reappeared more strongly in Christianity, like the focus on the saviour (Pers. Saoshyant). Amin123


 * You misunderstand. OK, vague and silly example here...
 * I write a book about the Da Vinci Code but never publish it.
 * Someone else reads my manuscript and writes their own inspired by mine, but shortly after that my manuscript is destroyed/burnt/stolen/lost/dog eats it/etc.
 * Someone then bases yet another book off of my imitator.
 * Was the final writer influenced by me? Yes, through the "middleman". But were they directly influenced? No, because my manuscript was destroyed and they never came in contact with it.
 * But that is exactly how it is with this situation! Zoroastrian/Mithraistic influences on Christianity came only through the middleman, as by the time this third flavour rolled around the first had ceased to exist/changed beyond recognition.
 * Yes there are influences, but they aren't direct, they're watered down. The Mithraists changed some elements, the Jews changed some too, and Christians changed some even further along. So by the end result is it really the influence of the original that made Christianity more like Z/M than Judaism was? Well, no, because, as I said, they had no direct contact. Now I won't say it was entirely a coincidence, but it can't have been as direct as you're saying, surely?
 * I'm not intending to start an argument, merely trying to show you that it isn't direct. Sorry, but I hope you understand me this time around. :) Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

'' So by the end result is it really the influence of the original that made Christianity more like Z/M than Judaism was? Well, no, because, as I said, they had no direct contact. Now I won't say it was entirely a coincidence, but it can't have been as direct as you're saying, surely? ''

They did have direct contact. Zoroastrianism directly influenced the old testament, which is a Christian (in addition to Jewish) text.

Amin123 July 11, 2005 5:48 PM (PST)

For the record...
R.C. Zaehner wrote that "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other." (pg 57–58; The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism). HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism monotheistic?
I don't know much about Zoroastrianism, and I'm in no position really to dispute the oft-repeated assertion on these pages (and at Zoroastrianism) that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. But I've always thought, and frequently read, that it's dualistic, that it considers the evil principle (Ahriman) to be co-eternal with the good principle (Ormazd or Ahura Mazda), and the two to be engaged in an "eternal battle". My dictionary calls it "a religious dualism"; the Encylopaedia Britannica says:
 * The Doctrine of Zoroaster may be summarized as follows: &mdash; At the beginning of things there existed the two spirits who represented good and evil (Yasna, 30, 3). Both spirits possess creative power, which manifests itself positively in the one and negatively in the other.  Ormazd is light and life, and creates all that is pure and good &mdash; in the ethical world of law, order and truth.  His antithesis is darkness, filth, death and produces all that is evil in the world.

and so on.

If this is so, it seems a little ... revisionist? ... to say that Zoroastrianism is the source of Jewish (and Christian and Moslem) monotheism. Frjwoolley 14:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Zoroastrianism appears to me to be quite different to Judaism. It might have had some influence during the years of exile, but I would say it was limited. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is dualistic but with a monotheistic destiny. It is also devotionally monotheistic as only Ahura Mazda is to be worshipped. Ahura Mazda is destined to destroy Ahriman and all in the world is destined to be good. Amin123 July 11 5:46 PM (PST)

Also want to note that in early Zoroastrianism, from what I have read, Ahriman was known only as 'the lie'. Amin123 July 11 5:54 PM (PST)
 * R.C. Zaehner backs this up: he states on page 34 of Dawn and Twilight that:
 * "The 'Lie', however, which both the Gāthās in the later Avesta, and the much later Pahlavi books, is the term used to represent the very principle of evil&mdash; Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, the 'Evil' or 'Aggresive Spirit' being only its leading personification&mdash; is not only the opponent and denial of Asha or abstract truth: much more essentially, in the Gāthās at least, it is predatory aggression against, or subversion of, good government and a peaceful agricultural and pastoral order."
 * HTH. Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's like God and Satan, each being supernatural powers, but only one being worshipped? That's interesting. But was it really monotheism ("our god's the only god, all others are fake") or was it just monolatry ("we only worship one god, but others are real too")? GarrettTalk 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It was monotheistic but never explicitly so (it never states ours is the "only God", it just never mentions any other gods. their existence or lack of existence is not mentioned in the gathas) from what I've read. Amin123 July 14 2005 9:48 PM (PST)


 * Ah, OK then. Verrrry interesting... :) GarrettTalk 07:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So Zoroastrianism is dualistic in the sense of believing in two opposing powers that have existed from all eternity, but monotheistic in the sense of offering worship to only one of them? (If worshipping only one god is your definition of "monotheism", then Judaism has been indisputably monotheistic from the very beginning, which means that Jewish monotheism predates any influence from Zoroastrianism.) That's certainly not what any Christian (or, I imagine, Jewish or Moslem) theologian would call monotheism. Frjwoolley 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)