Re: CHAT: Zoroastrian influences on Post-exilic Judaism

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:16:42 GMT Leo Caesius <leo_caesius@...>
writes:

[long post, lengthened by bad email program relineation]

> -Chollie
>
________________________________________________________________________
-

Okay, here we go:

Besides the ideas of "a gift of Free Will" and "a future leader who will
lead people to truth", none of the other portions of the outline of
Zoroastrian thought have a place in Judaism.
Hmmm...i thought the definitive Masoretic text was the _Keter Aram-Soba_
(Aleppo Codex?)....or maybe that's the oldest Torah scroll in existence?
I seem to remember that it's also from some time around the years
800-1100.
What do you mean by saying that the Septuagint shows that certain of the
Outside Books "were held equal to the rest of the Law"?  First of all,
what's "the Law"?  If you mean the Torah, i doubt very much that Esdras,
or Tobit, or Ben Sira, were ever considered equal to the Torah - one of
the basic ideas of Judaism is the compartmentalization of Scripture into
different levels (Torah = teaching ; Nevi'im = prophets ; and Ketuvim =
writings : in order of most holy/important to least) - and some sects of
the Second Temple period even rejected all books except for the Torah.  I
can understand if some people used to consider now-Outside books to be on
the level of Prophecy or of Sacred Writings, but it doesn't make sense
one bit for them to consider them equal to the Torah.
You say that "a look at non-standard denominations during this period
reveals much, much more" - but that's why they're non-standard, why they
didn't survive to become part of post-Second Temple Judaism.  Or as you
said (and i agree with)

>    Listen, I'm not trying to argue that today's Jews are
>crypto-Zoroastrians.  I just think that it would be misguided to ignore
the
>strong Iranian influences on Post-Exilic Judaism.  That these influences
>were rejected in a later period, and that communities such as the Nippur
>community and the Essenes "lost" in the sense that their contributions
are
>unrepresented in today's Jewish thought, are other issues.
About the Essenes....are you saying that "Sons of Light" and "Sons of
Darkness" are referring to children of divinities?  The Hebrew and
Aramaic terms for "son" and "daughter" are very commonly used not to mean
"child", but "person having to do with ____" - for instance, _bar mitzva_
doesn't mean "son of commandment", but "person obligated in
commandments", and _ben brit_ doesn't mean "son of covenant", it means
"member of the covenant/pact/alliance".  Notice that both of these
phrases, like "sons of light/darkness", are similar in that they are all
construct compounds refering to abstractions.

So what does this all come down to?
We agree that whatever Zoroastrian influences existed in Judaism during
the Second Temple period, 1) they were very pervasive at the time but 2)
they didn't survive.  (and as far as i'm concerned, good riddance! :-)  )


-Stephen (Steg)
 "You will begin to touch heaven, Jonathan, in the moment
  that you touch perfect speed.  And that isn't flying a thousand
  miles an hour, or a million, or flying at the speed of light.
  Because any number is a limit, and perfection doesn't have
  limits.  Perfect speed, my son, is being there."
                    ~ _jonathan livingston seagull_