The parallels between Christianity and Zoroastrianism are more
readily apparent than those between ancient Israelite religion and
Zoroastrianism. While ancient Israelites borrowed a few words and adopted a
minor theological concept or two, Christian authors not only borrowed words but
adopted major theological themes like Satan, the archenemy of God; demons; an
eschatological Messiah; and even the structure of one major apocalyptic Zoroastrian
story. These elements point to a stronger Zoroastrian influence on Christianity,
but also raise questions as to how such an influence could have occurred in the
first place. It is an examination of such influences, as well as theories
regarding how such influences occurred, to which we now turn.
Like the Hebrew willingness to employ Persian loanwords, the
authors of the Gospels were not averse to using words from other cultures and
religions to define what they saw. The word Daeva, the supernatural beings that
are the evil counterpart to the Yazata, was translated into Syriac as daywa (devil) and daywana (demoniac).Words referencing demoniacs are used throughout the Gospels and in several
places in other New Testament books.These references also bear no explanation as to what these demons are, showing
that demons were an assumed part of cultural knowledge as well as a given fact.
This etymological evidence shows that Christian writers were borrowing from
Zoroastrian theology and thought even without knowing it.
Christian theology shows more pronounced Zoroastrian influence
than the influence that is found in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus’ reference in
Matthew 18:10to
the angels assigned to children, most commonly referred to as “guardian
angels,” is close in concept to the Zoroastrian idea of either Yazata or Fravashi,
perfect types assigned to everything great or small.This reference by Jesus is unlike any other idea in either Jewish or Christian
theology of angels, and so it likely did not arise internally.Such an understanding of dedicated, living spiritual beings assigned to each
person is without precedent in Hebrew Scriptures, pointing to some other cultural
influence as the source.
The New Testament figure of Satan
provides helpful insight into the continued incorporation of Zoroastrian
thought. As we have seen, the satan/adversary in the Hebrew Bible was an agent
of God, welcome in God’s court, and fulfilling a legal role as accuser. Only
after the exile, in 1 Chronicles, does the satan
become Satan, an evil force working against God. This new definition and role
becomes the de facto role of Satan in
the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament feel no need to explain
Satan’s identity or role; they simply refer to him. He is now fully equivalent
to Angra Mainyu, the personal enemy of God, commander of the Daeva/demons, the
great liar and tempter. Gone is his role as God’s agent and his position in
God’s court. Instead Satan is now the damned enemy of God and his people, cut
off from God and working against him.
Resurrection is also more fully developed in Christianity than in ancient
Israelite thought. Many religions during the first several centuries of the Common
Era did not place much importance on resurrection, so even during this time
resurrection was still considered surprising.In fact, even when the doctrine of resurrection does appear in other early
Common Era religions like those of the Romans or Egyptians, there was no
agreement as to its significance or meaning.While resurrection clearly became a central tenant of the Christian faith, it
was not as important theologically to religions around the turn of the Common
Era. There is more to say about resurrection in Zoroastrianism and
Christianity, but it must be examined in light of each religion’s understanding
of the messiah.
The concept of the messiah in the
New Testament is greatly developed and expanded from what it was in the Hebrew
Bible. While the messiah in the Hebrew Bible has the role of a political leader
who will overthrow Israel’s oppressors
and reinstate the glory days of the Davidic kingdom, the messianic role of the
New Testament is much more eschatological, mirroring the Zoroastrian concept of
the Sosyant.
The Sosyants, in Zoroastrian thought,
are the soldiers and messengers of Ahura Mazda who help bring about the great
judgment, the destruction of Evil, and the restoration of all creation at the
end of time. In the development of Zoroastrianism, one final Sosyant bears the hopes of Zoroastrians,
so much so that his title eventually becomes his proper name.
Similarly, the Christian concept
of the Christ, which means “anointed one,” is the messenger of God and the soldier
who brings about the great judgment and destruction of Evil in Revelation. He
is the hope of all creation, and it is fitting to use his title, Christ, as his
proper name. In addition to these similarities, the Zoroastrian Sosyant and the Christian Christ share
several common traits: the Sosyant is
a descendant of Zoroaster, while the Christ is a descendant of David. Both come
as representatives of the True God, establishing His kingdom, and both were
born of a virgin.
With little difficulty, it is easy to see that the political messiah of the
Hebrew Bible bears little commonality with the Christian and Zoroastrian
concept of the apocalyptic savior who defeats Evil and ushers in a new
creation.
In addition to these major theological adoptions, the author of
Revelation apparently borrowed the structure and themes of one of the major
eschatological episodes in Zoroastrian scripture. Whereas Judaism’s lack of
interest in Persian thought is made evident by their refusal to adopt
Zoroastrian structure, Christianity’s openness is signaled by the Revelator’s
adoption of structure and theme.In the Avesta, the dragon Dahaka, an incarnation of Evil, is confronted by a Sosyant, but is not killed. Ahura Mazda
binds and imprisons the dragon, creating a thousand-year stay from his
destruction. Angra Mainyu frees the dragon, which promptly swallows Angra Mainyu
and destroys one third of the people, cattle, sheep, and other creatures
created by Ahura Mazda, as well as smiting the water, fire, and vegetation.
Another Sosyant finally kills the
dragon, and the third and final Sosyant, who
is called Sosyans,
resurrects the dead and ushers in the new creation.
Hintze states plainly that “the
similarities between these two stories are so striking that the myth alluded to
in the Book of Revelation may have been developed on an Iranian model.”
Sanders notes that the binding of the dragon, the thousand-year period after his
binding, the vanquishing of the dragon, the coming savior, and the beginning of
eternal salvation – the format of the story in Revelation 20 – is found almost
exactly in Zoroastrianism and nowhere
else. In this case, Zoroastrian influence is hard to dispute.
As I have previously discussed, it is unlikely that such close correlation in
eschatological stories developed independently in two traditions, especially
when opportunity for exchange was even more likely between Zoroastrianism and
Christianity than between Zoroastrianism and the exilic Judeans.
That point, however, has yet to be proven.
As previously discussed, the exilic Judeans considered the
Persians to be beneficent foreigners, but likely had little to no interest in
their religious beliefs. However, the Jews of several centuries later had an even
more improved view of the Persians. After the fall of the Achaemenid Empire,
the inheritors of Zoroastrian culture and religion were the Parthians, a group
who ruled present-day Iran. The post-exilic Jews did not relate to the
Parthians as captives relate to an oppressor, but as an ally against a common
foe, the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucid Empire had conquered the Jews, and the
Parthians came to their aid in a fight for their liberation. This sparked
several instances of teamwork between the Jewish forces and the Parthians over
several years. When the Roman Empire entered the scene, the Parthians managed
to avoid capture and defeat until after the turn of the first century, which
perhaps strengthened Jewish hopes that the Roman occupation would not last
forever. Such collaboration between allied neighbors, including a favorable
Jewish disposition to Parthian people and culture, may have been enough to stimulate
an exchange of ideas, including religious thought.It is during this period that Zoroastrian ideas about resurrection, divine
beings, and eschatology became more widespread.
In addition to these pre-New Testament events, the New Testament
book of Acts mentions Parthians in Acts 2:9 as people who heard the apostles
speaking in their own language on the day of Pentecost. Acts also mentions people
from Pontus in that same passage and again in Acts 18:2, and the letter of
First Peter is addressed to believers in Pontus as well. Pontus was a province
south of the Black Sea in Asia Minor that was founded by a Persian noble,
Mithridates, sometime in the fourth century BCE. It remained free of Roman rule
until 63 BCE.These favorable mentions of Parthians and people from Pontus within the New
Testament are not without implications. It is likely that the people of these
locations continued to practice some form of Zoroastrianism, even as late as
the first century CE, and that the Jews of the time looked favorably on their
Zoroastrian neighbors, since they worked side-by-side to overthrow oppressive
foreign invaders.
Zoroastrianism came into contact with not just exiled Jews after
the fall of Jerusalem, but also with post-exilic Jews now living in their
homeland. These Zoroastrians, like the beneficent rulers from several centuries
before, offered aid to a people whose hopes for a military savior were not
unlike their own hopes for an apocalyptic savior who would one day defeat evil.
The Parthian culture permeated the world in which Christianity was born and the
places into which it moved, offering even more possibilities for cultural
influence and exchange.Siding with Mary Boyce, James Barr states that it is beyond reason to doubt
that Zoroastrianism had significant influence over Christianity, considering
the influence the Parthians had at the time immediately before and after its
birth.In fact, it becomes increasingly likely that Zoroastrianism conveyed a strong
apocalyptic voice to Christianity without the need for a Jewish intermediary.
Is Direct Influence the
Only Explanation?
Noting these similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism,
a question arises: is Zoroastrianism’s influence on Christianity the only
explanation for these similarities, or are there other options? There are, in
fact, two other explanations for similarities between these two religions: 1)
similarities could have arisen separately in different cultures with no
contact; and 2) the influence could have gone in the other direction, in this
case, from Judaism or Christianity to Zoroastrianism, rather than the other way
around.In order for the first of these to be the case, there had to have been no
contact between the religions, a point which we have already proven false at a
number of times and places. For the second option to be true, that Judaism or
Christianity instead influenced Zoroastrianism, the visible change must have
been to Zoroastrianism, rather than the other way around. Having seen the minor
changes to the canonical writings of the exiled Judeans, the greater debate and
discussion of the period of Second Temple Judaism, and seeing radical
departures between Christianity and Judaism toward Zoroastrian thought,
however, leaves this second possibility as also having no merit. In light of
these rejections of the possibilities of simultaneous developments or reverse
influence, Zoroastrianism’s minor influence on Judaic thought and the
transmission and amplification of these distinctly Zoroastrian thoughts to
Christianity through the Second Temple period remains the only reasonable
explanation.
Of course, what I am proposing is not the wholesale adoption of
Zoroastrianism, rebranding it as “Christianity.”It is clear that many elements of Christianity belong exclusively to the
movement, while some themes are carried over from Israelite thought and some are
coopted from Persian thought. It should be no surprise that words, ideas, and
even theologies may be adopted or incorporated into other religions, while
other beliefs and practices are either abandoned or not adopted into the other
system. What I believe I have made clear, though, is that such a transfer
between Persian Zoroastrianism and Jewish/Greco-Roman Christianity has indeed
taken place.
Implications for
Christianity
All of these pieces of evidence showing Zoroastrian thought within
Christianity might come as a shock and a surprise to many Christians. However,
before jumping to the conclusion that influence means falsehood, consider the
aptly-chosen words of Winfried Corduan:
The evangelical doctrine of scripture includes
the notion that God revealed himself within human culture. Scripture, the Word
of God, is written in human language with human concepts, manifesting human
culture at every turn. Thus, the idea that part of the human culture which
embodies divine revelation combines some Persian elements with Jewish ones need
not be considered to be any more hostile to truth than the fact that parts of
the New Testament combine Jewish culture with various Hellenistic (Greek and
Roman) elements.
Finding elements of Zoroastrian thought within Christianity need
not be any more shocking than finding Jewish or Greco-Roman thought in
Christianity. To those both inside and outside of the faith, simply identifying
cultures which influenced Christianity should not be used as a means of
dismissal, but simply a natural result of cultural study and the growing base
of knowledge within the study of comparative religion.
Even with the recognition of sociological and theological
influence between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, Christianity retains
distinction and innovation on its own. For example, Christians and Zoroastrians
treat the relationship between messiah and resurrection very differently. In
Christianity, the Christ is the savior who is the first among many to be
resurrected; in Zoroastrianism, the Sosyant
simply brings about resurrections. This distinction is novel and
noteworthy, clearly an innovation without precedent.
Additionally, the Zoroastrian roles of priestly savior and
messenger of God, of the Elect Judge over all beings, and of the one who raises
the dead and authors a new creation are, in Christianity, consolidated into one
great Messianic figure without rival.While it may remain unpalatable to find so much correlation between
Zoroastrianism and Christianity, one neither needs to think the latter is a
carbon copy of the former, nor that the latter has nothing to offer. Quite to
the contrary, Christianity’s highlighting and restructuring both of Israelite
and Zoroastrian concepts does not need to be a source of shame, but could be
worn as a badge of pride. In fact, Christianity’s adaptation of Jewish,
Greco-Roman, and even Zoroastrian thought may be an example of religious
evolution and the survival of the fittest.Nonetheless, the influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity should not be
ignored just because it is unpopular or controversial.
Conclusion
The Persian religion of Zoroastrianism has had a profound
influence on many of the major concepts of Christianity. One of the most
important doctrinal influences was the concept of resurrection, particularly of
its importance and eschatological influence. In addition, the person and role
of the messiah transitioned greatly under Persian influence, changing from the Israelite
hope for a political savior to one that incorporated several messianic roles
found in Zoroastrian thought. In addition to these, the adoption of a great,
cataclysmic battle between Good and Evil is highlighted repeatedly in Christian
scriptures, whereas Hebrew scripture seems to indicate that both good and evil
find their source in God alone. This concept is underscored by the utter
separateness of the personal representation of Evil, Satan, from identification
with God. While in the Hebrew Bible the satan
worked for God in a role of accuser, the role and personification by the time
of the writing of the New Testament was firmly established and needed no
explanation. In addition to these deep, foundational theological ideas, the
author of Revelation co-opted, almost exactly, a major Zoroastrian apocalyptic
story as the basis for the triumphant ending of his work. Finally, several New
Testament authors reference positive interactions with persons whose origins
are in places of known Persian foundation, with a living Zoroastrian faith
likely being practiced during the time of writing. Not only did Zoroastrianism
have several opportunities for cultural transmission to Christianity, Christians
at the time seemed either oblivious to its influence or perhaps a bit on the
receptive side.
As I have shown, while Christianity was a major recipient of
Zoroastrian thought and incorporated its ideas broadly, the exilic Judeans had
quite a different experience. Living for nearly 200 years under Persian rule, the
Judeans were unreceptive to adopting Zoroastrian ideas into their religion, an
idea archaeological evidence supports. The Hebrew Bible itself remains
remarkably untouched by Persian influence, with the notable exceptions being
those books that note Persia or Persian administration outright, a few
loanwords, and the minor but significant shift in the role/person of
satan/Satan between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. While these instances certainly
show that ancient Judeans come into contact with Persia, wholesale accommodation
and incorporation of Zoroastrian religious thought regarding eschatology,
messianic expectations, and systemic dualism is not reflected in the Hebrew
Bible.
As Corduan bluntly states, “faint accidental resemblances
notwithstanding, there is no foundation for the notion that significant
doctrinal ideas in canonical Judaism were derived from Zoroastrian influence.”During the period of Second Temple Judaism, however, key ideas about the
messiah, angels, and eschatology were opened to debate, and it is during this
time of debate that Christianity was born. While Judaism had an established
canon on which to rely for stability, Christianity had no such support, instead
being influence by the cultural atmosphere of the time. Major themes within
Christianity show undeniable parallels with Zoroastrian theology, indicating
that during the Second Temple period, the cultural diversity of Israel
foundationally affected Christian theology. Zoroastrianism did not
significantly influence ancient Israelite religion. As we have seen, though,
the same cannot be said of Christianity.
Works
Cited
Bampfylde, G. "The Similitudes of Enoch: Historical Allusions."
Journal for the Study of Judaism 15 (1984): 9-31.
Barr, James. "The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity." Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 53, no. 2 (June 1985): 201-235.
Becking, Bob. "Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some
Introductory Remarks." In The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Tranformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times,
edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel, 1-8. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. "Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1
Chronicles 21." In Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings - Origins,
Development and Reception, edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas
and Karin Schopflin, 139-154. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
Block, Daniel I. "Beyond the Grave: Ezekiel's Vision of Death and
Afterlife." Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 113-141.
Boyce, Mary. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1975.
—. Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour. Costa Mesa,
CA: Mazda Publishers, 1992.
Capes, David B., Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards. Rediscovering
Paul: An Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology. Downers Grove:
IVP Academic, 2007.
Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. Handbook on the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1997.
—. "The Meaning of "The End in the Book of Daniel." In Of
Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism,
and Christian Origins, edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins and
Thomas H. Tobin, 91-98. Lanham: University Press of America, 1990.
Corduan, Winfried. "The Date of Zoroaster: Some Apologetic Considerations."
Presbyterion 23, no. 1 (1997): 25-42.
Davies, W. D., and Louis Finkelstein.The Cambridge History of Judaism.
Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Evans, Paul. "Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An
Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler's Theology." Biblica, 2004:
545-558.
Gaiser, Frederick J. "Refiner's Fire adn Laundry Soap: Images of God
in Malachi 3:1-14." Word and World, 1999: 83-91.
Hannah, Darrell D. "Guardian Angels and Angelic National Patrons in
Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity." In Angels: the Concept
of Celestial Beings - Origins, Development, and Reception, edited by
Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas and Karin Schopflin, 413-435. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
Herrenschmidt, Clarisse, and Bruce Lincoln. "Healing and Salt
Waters: The Bifurcated Cosmos of Mazdaean Religion." History of
Religions 43, no. 4 (2004): 269-283.
Herzfeld, Ernst. Zoroaster and His World. Vol. 1. New York:
Octagon Books, 1974.
Hinnells, John R. "Zoroastrian Saviour Imagery and its Influence on
the New Testament." Numen 16, no. 3 (December 1969): 161-185.
Hintze, Almut. "The Saviour and the Dragon in Iranian and
Jewish/Christian Eschatology." Edited by Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer. Irano-Judaica
4 (1999): 72-90.
Isbell, Charles David. "Zoroastrianism and Biblical Religion." Jewish
Bible Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2006): 143-154.
Jarick, John. "Questioning Sheol." In Resurrection, by
Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs, 22-32. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Koester, Craig R. Revelation and the End of All Things. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001.
Levenson, Jon D. Esther: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1997.
Longman, Tremper III. "The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and
Writings." In The Messiah in Old and New Testaments, edited by
Stanley E. Porter, 13-34. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007.
Matthews, Victor H. A Brief History of Ancient Israel. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002.
—. "Physical Space, Imagined Space, and "Lived Space" in
Ancient Israel." Biblical Theology Bulletin, 2003: 12-20.
—. Studying the Ancient Israelites. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2007.
Moore, George Foot. "Zoroastrianism." Havard Theological
Review 5, no. 2 (1912): 180-226.
Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and Zoroastrianism at the Dusk of Late
Antiquity: How Two Ancient Faiths Wrote Down their Great Traditions.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Nigosian, S. A. The Zoroastiran Faith: Tradition and Modern Research.
Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993.
Peterson, David L. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.
"Pontus." In Holman Bible Dictionary, edited by Trent C.
Butler, 1123. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991.
Reddish, Mitchell G., ed. Apocalyptic Literature: A Reader.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.
Rennie, Bryan. "Zoroastrianism: The Iranian Roots of
Christianity?" Bulletin of the Coucil of Societies for the Study of
Religion 36, no. 1 (February 2007): 3-7.
Rose, Jenny. Zoroastrianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York:
Continuum Iternational Publishing Group, 2011.
Russell, James R. "Zoroastrian Elements in the Book of Esther."
Inaro-Judaica 2 (1990): 33-40.
Sanders, Jack T. Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The
First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations. Valley Forge:
Trinity Press International, 1993.
—. "When the First Millennium? The Sources behind Revelation
20." New Testament Studies 50 (2004): 44-456.
Sievers, J. "Who where the Pharisees?" In Hillel and Jesus:
Comparitive Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, 137-155. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Skjaervo, Prods Oktor. The Spirit of Zoroastriansim. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2011.
Smith, Jonathan Z. "Earth and Gods." Journal of Religion
49, no. 2 (1969): 103-127.
Stern, Ephraim. "Religion in Palestine in the Assyrian and Persian
Periods." In The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of
Religious Tradition in Exilic adn Post-Exilic Times, edited by Bob Becking
and Marjo C. A. Korpel, 245-255. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Stewart, Eric C. "New Testament Space/Spatiality." Biblical
Theology Bulletin 42, no. 3 (2012): 139-150.
Talbert, Charles H. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of
John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Tremmel, William Calloley. "Satan - The Dark Side." Iliff
Review 42 (1985): 3-12.
Walton, John H. "The Decree of Darius the Mede in Daniel 6." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 3 (September 1988):
279-286.
Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP
Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic,
2000.
Waters, Matt. "Cyrus and the Achaemenids." Iran 42
(2004): 91-102.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. The Nature of Persia-Hebrew Language Contact in
the Achaemenid Period. November 19, 2011.
http://www.academia.edu/1707487/The_Nature_of_Persian-Hebrew_Language_Contact_in_the_Achaemenid_Period
(accessed May 6, 2013).
Witherington,
Ben III. Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Hinnells, 181-183, 185. G. Bampfylde underscores the importance of the
Parthians to events involving the Jewish people in “The Similitudes of Enoch:
Historical Allusions” Jounal for the
Study of Judaism 15 (1984), 9-31,particularly on pages 17-18.
