Zoroastrianism and the Bible: Monotheism by Coincidence?

Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Zoroastrianism and the Bible: Monotheism by Coincidence? Erhard S. Gerstenberger* Philipps University of Marburg Abstract No book since the beginning of human writing systems has been of greater influence on religion and culture in the ‘Western’ Hemisphere than the Bible. Many believers have taken it to be the ultimate revelation and unchangeable truth for all times and peoples. Especially its creedal centre, monotheism, i.e. faith in one inclusive and exclusive deity was hailed as the pivotal, unsurpassable human cognition. Unfortunately, there are no absolutes within reach of human understanding. Finitum non capax infiniti. Biblical scholarship long has recognized that everything we perceive in this world is conditioned by time and space. Expressions of faith are no exception from this rule. Therefore, acknowledgment of historical and cultural ‘contextuality’ is necessary, including the fact, that Israel’s monotheistic religion was not borne in the epoch of Moses, but only much later inside the political, economic and spiritual framework of the Persian Empire (539–331 BC). If there is some truth to this assumption, scholarly zeal should be directed towards a clarification of the intimacies of religious interaction in this period. A prominent question would be: What really were the common patterns of contemporary thinking and believing, in which both Zoroastrian and Yahwistic faith participated? The Issue ‘The Book’ (Bible) from its beginnings in late Near Eastern antiquity has been (as Tanach = Torah, Prophets, Writings) the pillar of Jewish identity and in due course also became the corner-stone of Christian and to a certain extent Muslim tradition with ‘monotheism’ at its very centre. This is the main reason for academic research to clarify the details of its origin and impact on peoples and cultures (cf. Gerstenberger 2005; Saw- yer 2006). Historical circumstances do shed light on its essence and caracter, make under- stand particularities of time, custom, mental frames which conditioned the ancient writers, users, and transmitters. They, most of all, enable us to relate very remote concep- tions of God and Men to our modern world. For more than two centuries now, western scholars have laboured to identify cultural and religious interaction of biblical witnesses with their contemporary environment. Without doubt, there has been much contact with Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Amorite strands of thinking and practice. Hebrew tradition partially concurs with their cultic systems, conceptions of law and righ- teousness, mythological heritage (Sasson 1995; Smith 1990).1 But why in the world have the ancient Persian religious and cultural conventions, down to our time, been so little recognized as forming the most important partners in dialogue for the emerging ancestral community of our own faith tradition?2 Apparently the weight of traditional assumptions and views in regard to the religious history of the Levant and the compositional and redactional processes undergone by biblical tradition are still blocking insights gained in several fields of Old Testament study during the past decades. ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  Zoroastrianism and the Bible 105 Origins of ‘Israel’ Hebrew Scriptures suggest that the Yahweh-faith-community of the people of Israel came into being in Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron (Ex 1–15; Num 1–4; 10; Hos 11:1; Ps 80:9). The existence of the Hebrew Canon, however, both in biblical and modern understanding, is intimately connected with the emergence of that same community of the covenant.3 Consequently, as the traditional view has it, at least the oldest parts of the Torah (five books of Moses; Pentateuch) should have been written or at least composed orally back in the Mosaic era. The idea perfectly fits the writing activities of Moses himself reported e.g. in Ex 17:14; 24:4; Deut 29:19; 31:22.4 Scholarship, however, over the past two centuries ever more questioned the historical correctness of both of these assumptions. The formation of the ‘ecclesiastic association of Israel’ (over against a homonym political entity, the northern Kingdom of Israel) and the concomitant collection and edition of its Sacred Scrolls establishing her distinct reli- gious identity cannot have taken place anytime in or before the 12th century BC Mod- ern OT exegesis takes Hebrew Scriptures as faith-documents containing ideological reconstructions of historical events rather than close-up protocols of historical happen- ings.5 Arguments in favour of this negative thesis are manifold, they come from literary analyses of biblical texts, archaeological discoveries, reconstructions of historical and social developments in the Levant, theories on religious thought and practice.6 Suffice it to say that most Old Testament scholars who follow in some way or other the line of historical-critical exegesis have adopted this basic stance first spelled out by Julius Well- hausen of Go¨ttingen before 1900. Martin Noth’s dictum proved convincing: ‘‘Israel constituted herself as an alliance of tribes only after entering the promised land’’ (1954, pp. 13–14). Members of the Albright-School in the USA, most of all John Bright, could not agree with that. They would strictly stick to the literal affirmations of the Scriptures, trying to undergird its ‘historical truth’ by pointing to alleged archaeological proofs for, e.g. the violent destruction of Jericho by Joshua’s armies (cf. Bright 1959). But what was the real time and place when the Israelites turned a Yahweh-community of its own rights? Most modern experts choose a period between first settlements of Hebrew clans in the hill country of Canaan (estimated after the 12th century BC, thus Miller & Hayes 2006, pp. 113–8) and the reforms of Josiah at the end of the 6th century BC a time-span of more than half a millennium. Special attention often is given to the ‘Assyrian crisis’ in the second half of the 8th century under the imperial rulers Tiglath-pileser III, Shal- maneser V, and Sargon II when, supposedly, Israel’s Yahwistic identity was formed. The royal proclamation of a nucleus of Deuteronomic laws either under the Judean king Hezekiah or a century later under Josiah do play a central role in this history-painting (cf. Ahlstro¨m 1993, pp. 536–7; 597–8; 736–9; Albertz 1992, pp. 255–90; 304–60; Miller & Hayes 2006, pp. 313–5; 410–21; 457–60). The past decades have yielded, however, a different picture of the literary growth of sacred traditions in Israel. Historical evidence, as much as we can muster, and theory fall in line with it. Careful research in the different bodies of Old Testament writings discov- ered too many vestiges of late redaction and compositions within the Torah, and the pro- phetic corpus to be ignored. The ‘Writings’ (Didactic Books) per se have always been associated with later periods of Israel’s history. For the most part, scholars now credit the exilic and post-exilic periods with the creative assemblage of scattered older traditions, in both OT sections, the ‘Laws’ and the ‘Prophets’.7 A large percentage of Israel’s narra- tion and poetry is of the retrospective type, painting the past with the colours of contem- porary life, thus giving meaning and orientation to the newly formed, post-exilic ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 106 Erhard S. Gerstenberger Yahweh-community. This implies a strictly religious (not ‘historical’ in our sense) inten- tion on the side of all authors, composers, and redactors of the Hebrew Scriptures. Historical and sociological observations support the late dating of biblical books and the Scripture as a whole. The state of ancient Israel (ca. 926–722 BC) vanished under the Assyrian onslaught. The tiny kingdom of Judah (926–587 BC) could barely live up to the expectations put into it posthumously by theologians of the Jewish congregation. In terms of religious life during the monarchies from Saul onward we may be fairly accurate assuming a royal cult for Yahweh, drawn from particular tribal groups by David and established in his new capital (2 Sam 6). At the same time a variety of family cults and local sanctuaries continued unmolested until the end of the last Judean king. The tragic loss of statehood, monarchy, and temple, then, made necessary a complete re-organization of what was left of Judean society. It gave rise to the exclusive confessional alliance to Yahweh. The constitution of the faith community provided the new group-identity of Israelite-Jewish colouring among the exiled and those left at home. In terms of religious historical theory: It does seem highly improbable, that Israel turned a Yahweh-commu- nity before the end of the monarchies. With all autonomy gone, the dire necessity to rally around a new banner, the desire to stay together, especially in a foreign country, make for plausible reasons to build that new, unheard of ‘ecclesiastic’ association of believers. This hypothesis of a late religious organization in Old Testament time is able to overcome the traditional, but unlikely idea of a seminal group of exclusive Yahweh- believers to have sprung up earlier, whether under Moses himself or under some other religious leader, only to be forgotten and stayed dormant during long periods of time.8 That pure faith should re-emerge, like under Josiah (2 Kings 22–23), seems to be a pious legend. Canon and Identity If there is some plausibility to the ideas exposed above the next question will be: How do we have to re-evaluate the period of Persian domination of the ancient world in rela- tion to the very small and scattered Israelite ⁄ Jewish groups seeking their own identity? What was the degree of their integration into Achaemenid politics, economy, and cul- ture? Internal biblical evidence is pitifully scarce and external vestiges of the ways of life of the beaten generation does not reveal very much either. But there are certain insights available which, puzzled together, may yield some rough picture of the situation. The biblical books of Esra ⁄ Nehemia, Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, second and third Isaiah and the Priestly layers of the Pentateuch as well as a good number of Psalms were certainly written and re-worked during that time, to mention only the most important sources for our knowledge (cf. Gerstenberger 2005, pp. 116–213). Most other parts of the Hebrew Bible were brought together redactionally, and a canonical collection of writings called the ‘book of the law of Moses’ was already used in Torah-worship- services (cf. Neh 8:1–8). This fact evidently implies the existence of professional scribes, liturgists, exegetes, cultic agendas, holy places and calendars. But we are more interested in the way of life deported Judeans and those who stayed behind were leading. What was their mental and religious horizon? Which were the dominant modes and patterns of thinking in the Persian Empire? (Lipschits & Oeming 2006). Experts have often marvelled at the jubilance with which the captive Israelites in their Babylonian settlements received the Persian emperor Cyrus around 539 BC He is literally called the ‘Messias’ of God, the anointed and commissioned liberator for Yahweh’s cho- sen people (Isa 44:28; 45:1–4). His successors on the throne are partially named as special ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  Zoroastrianism and the Bible 107 benefactors of the Israelite community, extending their favours by deploying Nehemiah (who becomes governor of Judah!) and Ezra, by offering protection against rivalling neighbours and even financing the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. The reports we have in the Bible about the relationship with the Persian government are unusually positive quite in contrast to most passages mentioning the Assyrian or Babylonian domi- nance. Any deplorable social situations (Neh 5:1–5; 9:36–37) may not have been credited to the foreign rulers and their tributary system but to local agents. Thus, available sources want to make us believe that there was, all in all, an optimal climate of mutual trust between Persian government and subjugated as well as liberated Judeans (cf. Berquist 1995; Carter 1999; Miller and Hayes 2006, pp. 498–540). External evidence may support this favourable impression. Business archives of a big Babylonian commercial firm, the Murasˇu-family, register among their business-partners or clients a good number of Judean names. This fact would testify in favour of a full inte- gration of deportees in the Babylonian-Persian society of the second half of the 5th cen- tury BC The ‘letter to the captives’ purportedly written by Jeremiah (Jer 29:1–9) seems perfectly to coincide with this situation. In the same vein the documents found in the garrison of Judean mercenaries at Elephantine, in upper Egypt, testify to a quite normal private and congregational life of the Jewish families in the service of the Persian central government. They even had their own Yahweh-temple and venerated at his side a god- dess in full contrast to the rules against apostasy propagated in Deuteronomy and other Hebrew writings. Letters to and fro Jerusalem and Samaria demonstrate, on top of all this, that there was a certain communion between the homeland and southern Egyptian Jews. Remarkably, though, no traces or references to Scriptures are found in any kind of papy- rus, be it of a civil or congregational genre. Difference of Mental Patterns Granted that the emerging Jewish faith community, centred around Torah and exclusive Yahweh-worship, had its formative period during the ancient Persian rule (5th ⁄ 4th cen- turies BC) we are obliged to investigate possible interactions with the dominating culture and religion. I propose, however, not to look for literary dependencies, like much of ear- lier scholarship has done. Hardly ever theologians of one religious fold want to copy the holy documents of another group, even when drawing on alien spiritual traditions. Rather, ‘interaction’ means the well-known cultural-historical fact that heterogeneous faith traditions partake, each in their own language and mental frames, in a common way of thinking. Some patterns of thought indeed do spread across cultural boundaries, like, e.g. the ‘free market’ idea in our days leaping even ideological frontiers. In this fashion, Israelite thinkers in the Old Persian world may have creatively, even unconsciously used conceptualizations foreign to their own Hebrew tradition. Of course, this perspective is a risky one; it does presuppose our ability to recognize new patterns of thought prevalent in Persian culture and religion as distinguished from older Babylonian views. Equally important is a similar distinction between old and new in Israelite ⁄ Jewish thinking. To begin with the first item: How did Persian world-views make themselves felt in that Mesopotamian, ‘western’ culture to which Israel belonged? Specialists in Achaemenid history and spirituality point to the fact that the imperial kings embraced Zoroastrianism – without mentioning its founder – as the religious force behind their governments.9 Old Persian politics of religion seem to breathe the relative tolerance over against other religions, in that Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 108 Erhard S. Gerstenberger god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept. On the other hand, there is this typical Zoroastrian dichotomy of true and false worship, of light and darkness, good and bad which has led Westerners to denominate Zoroastrianism as ‘dualistic’. In the name of ‘truth’ and ‘basic world-order’ (asˇa, arta) the Persian ruler claimed world domin- ion for themselves as representatives of Ahura Mazda and opposing sharply ‘lie’ and ‘wick- edness’ (drug) solely to be encountered on the side of rebelling forces all over the world. Experts on Sumerian and Akkadian mythology and religion, if they address themselves to such comparisons at all, will admit that with the advent of the ancient Iranians some- thing new came up in the spiritual history of the Near East. Mesopotamian thinking was of another type, much less dichotomous, less rigid in ethics, more prone to the richness and variability of the divine world and a flexible order of the universe, more dedicated to natural social structures with their own raison-de-etre.10 The rich cuneiform literature of ancient Mesopotamia down to the take-over of the Persians (539 BC) did not produce texts like the Avestan hymns and liturgies which constantly request a lifelong decision for the one and exclusive Truth. There is no comparable insistence in Mesopotamian texts on a violent end of all human history, a final clash between good and evil later personi- fied in Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, the salvation of the soul, systemic antagonisms of good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lie. In the same vein, if there is some plausibility in the above arguments, it should be pos- sible to distinguish within the Old Testament itself traditions of the general Mesopota- mian type, supposedly belonging to the Israelite heritage of the early first millennium, and traces of that new Iranian antagonistic, eschatological, monotheistic thinking oscillat- ing between two opposed poles. Of course, it is a matter of assessing literature and history of old Israel along the lines spelled out above: The faith-community of Yahweh-believers and, coinciding with its emergence in exilic and post-exilic times, the creation of the Hebrew canon are pivotal to the Judean’s interaction with Old Persian ways of thinking. Initial suspicions that it may have happened just this way in my opinion are strong enough, however, that we should at least give it a try to investigate seriously such mental affinity (not: literary dependence) between the two only monotheistic religions of their time. Points of Convergence Obviously, comparing Old Testament models of theological conceptualizations to Old Persian ones is not a customary feature in biblical scholarship,11 but it potentially is a wide field of promising research. We may pick up only some prominent items which demonstrate similarities on the intellectual plane. Structural analogies between both religions, indicating a common mode of thinking, are patent in the way communication with the deity, organization of community, trans- mission of the divine word are perceived, understood and construed in their respective ancient documents. The oldest parts of the Avesta12 are the Gathas of Zoroaster, three ancient magic formulas and the Yasna Hapta¢haiti (Narten 1986), all featuring a peculiar ‘old Avestan language’ (cf. Humbach 1991) and probably belonging into the 6th century BC or earlier, being separated from the younger parts of the Sacred Writings by 2–4 cen- turies (Stausberg 2002, pp. 83–107). The original source of all spiritual knowledge and instruction is Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’, single male and sovereign ruler over the whole world. In the Gathas he communicates exclusively with Zoroaster, his servant. In the ‘Seven-Part Yasna’ he speaks through successors to Zoroaster, mediators of the divine will. The model is known from the Old Testament: Moses and the prophets transmit ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  Zoroastrianism and the Bible 109 the Word of Yahweh. The stream of tradition thus generated flows during centuries in the Persian religious community, even until this day, although the number of Parsi- adherents to the old teachings principally in Iran, India and the USA is greatly reduced.13 But the Avestan tradition as a whole in later centuries became bundled up in sacred writ- ings, similar to the Jewish–Christian–Muslim development. The words of Ahura Mazda and the many ritual texts in Avesta became the backbone of that particular religious com- munity which Zoroaster himself gathered together. Thus astonishingly, his and his fol- lowers’ ‘preaching’ constituted a purely religious community, which – as far as experts can surmise – did not identify with any ethnicity or political identity, notwithstanding the early instrumentalisation of Ahura Mazda by the Achaemenids and other potentates. Like the emerging Jewish Yahweh congregation at its best Zoroaster’s assembly of faithful was formed (at least ideally) not by national or ethnic interests but in a universal outlook by those who decided to convert themselves from the obnoxious Demons ⁄ false Gods to the true Supreme Deity. The constant preaching tone of the old Avestan is to get away from the bad influence of the devas (demons) which can be done with the help of Ahura: These (are) the two spirits (present) in the primal (stage of one’s existence), twins who have become famed (manifesting themselves as) the two (kinds of) dreams, The two (kinds of) thoughts and words, (and) the two (kinds of) actions, the better and the evil. And between these two, the munificent discriminates rightly, (but) not the miserly. And when these two spirits confront each other (to vie for a person), Then (that person) decides (of what nature will be) the primal (stage of his existence): Vitality and lack of vitality, and (on the other hand) of what nature (his) existence will be in the end: That of the deceitful (will be) the worst, but best thought will (be in store) for the truthful one. (Yasna 30, pp. 3–4; according to Humbach 1991) The decision for Truth and Life splits mankind in two categories of people: munificent, truthful ones on the one, and miserly, deceitful ones on the other hand. The discrimina- tion between believers and disbelievers, just ones and godless ones is borne replacing older demarcations along societal group-lines. Grant You, O Ahura, strength through truth to those (present), and that power through good thought, by which one may establish good dwellings and peace. (For) I myself realised (that) Thou (art) the primal provider of that, O Wise One. (Yasna 29, 10; according to Humbach 1991) A purely religious Zoroastrian community was built up in the same fashion we witness in Deuteronomistic preaching (see Conclusions). Zoroaster’s followership and the exilic Judean congregation were the first confessional religious bodies in the history of human- ity. Before that time religion had been closely tied to social or ethnic groups, now it had become an independent force capable of forming an autonomous spiritual society (Widengren 1961). Theological outlooks and concepts enshrined in this new type of faith-community, unheard of in former religious history are remarkable as well. One God becomes the supreme being, the creator and provider of the universe. He, at the same time, is believed to take care of every individual created by him. The highest God is in command. In the Persian faith subordinated divine beings like ‘best thought’, ‘deciding power’, ‘truth’ sur- round him. Top rank among those has asˇa (arta) corresponding to ‘justice, equity, order’. Ahura Mazda in some Gathas is cooperating or even intermingling with this encompass- ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 110 Erhard S. Gerstenberger ing and pervasive arch-principle. On the Israelite side, Yahweh turns to be the Highest God over executive forces like Satan (Job 1:6–12; Zech 1:1–7) or simply ‘Sons of God; Deities’ (Ps 82; 58:2–3). Deuteronomistic theology refrains from depicting these helpers of God. But, according to some Psalms, he is accompanied by Truth, Justice, Righteous- ness (cf. Ps 85:10–14) hypostases of divine presence. The concept of the one, supreme, utterly good Deity of the Persian writings and the highest, sovereign, exclusive ruler in the Hebrew realm represent a slightly varying model of the monotheistic idea of a religion which requires personal decision and life- long dedication to the only true Deity. This means: Believers try to relate their own destiny as well as that of their faith-community to one source of power, instead of searching out the most probable origin of devastating impacts on their lives or elevating experiences of salvation. On both sides there are many uncertainties connected with such unilateral theological explanation. A hard and steady, unambiguous doctrinal scheme does not exist and cannot be expected. Persian texts are oscillating over time in describing the sole and pervasive authority of Ahura Mazda, over against his twin, the bad Angra Mainyu (later Ahriman) and the many amesˇa spentas, the ‘most bounteous spirits or immortals’ (Mary Boyce) as well as the hosts of bad Demons. In the same vein Hebrew Scriptures, departing from the old West-Semitic tradition of the Highest God or president of the Divine Council (like in Ugaritic myths, cf. Smith 1994 and 2009), struggle with the one-dimensional attribution of power to their exclusive, history- and ethnically oriented Yahweh. Conclusions The gist of religious innovation, it seems, was the establishment within the realm of Zoroastrian faith as well as in the small communities of deported Judeans of confessional ‘congregations’. That means: Here were people who did define their identity in the first place with their voluntary decision to adhere exclusively and for good to one deity. Hebrew Scriptures place great emphases on this act of self-dedication. Thus, Joshua con- venes all the tribes at Shechem to swear them in on the God of Israel: ‘‘… choose this day whom you will serve …, but as for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh’’ (Josh 24:15). Likewise, Moses admonishes his people: ‘‘Choose life so that you and your descendants may live …’’ (Deut 30:19) on the basis of the firm alliance with Yahweh (‘‘… the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe’’, Deut 30:14). The Pentateuch abounds in covenant-discourse, and the Prophets often echo this rhetoric. Behind it we visualize the new community-type rallying behind one God, with all the symbolic paraphernalia we know from the Old Testament: Torah; worship; priesthood; levites; scribes; Sabbath; circumcision; seasonal feasts and pilgrimages; sacred and civil customs etc. Israel did constitute herself a ‘sacred people’ (Ex 19:4–6; Lev 19:2–4) in and after the exile, and the reasons are more or less recognizable: The down- fall of the Judean kingdom, with concomitant loss of national independence, temple, and territorial cohesion (centrifugal dispersion) the ancient Judeans greatly needed a unifying bond. Family- and clan-structures were not sufficient for the collective survival. Tribal memories alone probably would not revive brotherhood either. But faith in the old Davi- dic state-God Yahweh, having more ancient roots in some tribal tradition, proved to be a strong tie between all the factions of Judeans, no matter where they lived in the Persian Empire. The Zoroastrian community, mentioned above, is less visible in the early parts of Avesta. We can be sure only about the existence of disciples and other followers of the ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  Zoroastrianism and the Bible 111 Prophet. There have been contacts also to some political leaders, one of whom, Visˇtaspa, even supported Zoroaster and protected him (Yasna 53:2). Apart from some sparse hints like this there is almost no information from outside the Avesta.14 Time and circum- stances of Zoroaster’s teachings are unknown. He must have worked in an agrarian set- ting in the eastern, central Asian parts where the Medes and Persians lived before they founded their states in the West (=today’s Iran). Interestingly, Old Avestan writings do not show traces of ethnical or political orientation even though the Achaemenids make ample use of religion to support their cause.15 Ahura Mazda is not even denominated ‘King’ in Avesta. These are strong indications that Zoroaster’s religion in the beginning was ‘private’, ‘neutral’, ‘non-ethnic’ and open for the whole of mankind. We may sur- mise, then, that the community of believers, which is mentioned in some passages of Avestan liturgies, even using the 1. Person Plural at times, also was a strict religious asso- ciation of individual believers, serving as a group for personal and collective identification (Avesta calls them: the ‘truthful’, ‘loyal’ ones; Old Testament designations are the ‘just’ or ‘holy ones’). But we unfortunately cannot recognize the social particularities of this Ira- nian faith assembly nor the conditions leading to its monotheism. If community identity was a prime motif for rallying behind one determined deity how can we explain the fact that both in Iranian and in Israelite theological reflection there emerged, practically side by side, a universal, all encompassing image of one divine ruler of all the creation and all history? Theories about the rise of monotheism have been mushrooming in recent decades (cf. Smith 1990; Assman 1997; Krebernik & van Oorsc- hoot 2002; Lang 2002; Wacker 2004; Halpern 2009). They all labour with diverse con- cepts of revelation and ingenious discovery of the Oneness of God by outstanding religious minds. Iranian exclusiveness and dichotomy in the worship of Ahura Mazda is more mysterious than the Israelite counterpart. As for the Old Testament scholarship rec- ognized a good amount of survival strategy in the insistence on Yahweh’s superiority over all the Gods of the world. The imperial ideology of Mesopotamian world powers may well be the background of such power-discourse. On Zoroaster’s side it is, strangely enough, absent. Old Avestan texts (and Joung Avestan ones neither) do not let perspire such a politically tinged claim. Be it as it may, further research in ancient documents, artefacts and thought patterns may still reveal more illuminating details relevant to this important question. Short Biography Born in 1932 to a coal-miner and his wife, Erhard S. Gerstenberger was the first in his fam- ily to attend a secondary school. After the war he chose to study Protestant Theology at Marburg, Tu¨bingen and Bonn, where he also was promoted to ‘doctor of theology’ (direc- tors of study: Martin Noth, Otto Plo¨ger). After 5 years of studying and teaching at Yale Divinity School (1959–1964) and in between pastoral work in a parish of Essen city he did his ‘Habilitation’ at Heidelberg under Hans-Walter Wolff. From 1975–1981 he served as professor of Old Testament in Brazil and thereafter at the German universities of Giessen and Marburg. Retired since 1997 he continues lecturing and writing in his field. Main publications: Wesen und Herkunft des apodiktischen Rechts (1965) and Der bittende Mensch (1980) both reprinted by Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR, 2009. Com- mentaries on the Psalms (2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1988 and 2001); Yahwe, the Patriarchal God (2006) and Theologies in the Old Testament (2002) both by Fortress, Minneapolis. Israel in der Persischen Zeit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2005; Engl. translation forthcoming by SBL Press, Atlanta, GA). ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 112 Erhard S. Gerstenberger Notes * Correspondence address: Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Philipps University of Marburg, Lahntor 3, D-35032 Marburg, D-35394 Giessen, Germany. E-mail: gersterh@staff.uni-marburg.de 1 The famous dispute about ‘Bible and Babylon’ centred in Berlin (1902) and the Pan-Babylonian School of F. Delitzsch, P. Jensen, A. Jeremias at least opened the eyes for possible relationships between the religions. 2 Only a few of Old Testament scholars admit this deplorable lacuna: e.g. Klaus Koch; Bernhard Lang; Othmar Keel; John L. Berquist. 3 This assumption has become a commonplace for all critical scholars, cf. e.g. Noth 1954; Ahlstro¨m 1993 and the phalanx of younger experts, like John van Seters; John W. Rogerson; Keith W. Whitelam; Philip R. Davies; Lester L. Grabbe; Graham Auld; Nils Lemche; Thomas L. Thompson. 4 Some scholars, like Albertz 1992, pp. 76–104; insist on the sheer experience of liberation from Egyptian slavery by Yahweh as the crucial first impulse of Israelite religion. Gottwald (1979) believes in the same kind of collective emotion nurtured by rebelling slaves inside old Palestine. 5 Cf. e.g. Seters 1983; Davies in Williamson 2007, pp. 53–4: ‘‘… the biblical account of Israelite history is not … a source … but a product of ancient Israelite (or rather, Judean) history.’’ 6 By and large all the contributions to Williamson 2007 defend this position. 7 An overall impression of how the literary genesis of Hebrew writings and canon is judged presently may be gleaned from Introductions to the Old Testament like that e.g. of Zenger (2004) and Carr (2010). 8 Bernhard Lang and Rainer Albertz speak, e.g. of a 9th century BC ‘Yahweh-alone-movement’ personified in the ‘Men of God’ Elijah and Elisha, cf. Lang 2002; Albertz 1992. Both ‘Yahweh-prophets’ are late deuteronomistic figures, however. 9 Cf. the Bisutun-inscription of king Darius I (cf. C.-H. Bae, 2001, Comparative Studies of King Dareios Bisutun Inscription. Diss Harvard University) and other royal documents; Boyce 1982, pp. 40–69; Stausberg 2002, pp. 157– 86; Briant 2002, pp. 126–8. 10 Oppenheim 1964; Jacobsen 1976; Sasson 1995; Groneberg 2004; Zgoll 2006. 11 Theologians usually refrain from broaching the subject, experts in history of religion tend to be more open to comparative reflections, cf. Widengren 1965; Boyce 1982; Lanczkowski 1987; Ahn 1992; Zgoll 2006. 12 The first European edition of a small part of Avestian writings was by A. Duperron, Le Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroaster in 1771, as noted by Lanczkowski (1987, p. 249). Among many other editions figures that of Brock- haus (1850), Vendidad Sade. Die heiligen Schriften Zoroaster’s Yac¸na, Vispered und Vendidad, Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, reprinted in 1990 at Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. 13 Both Boyce 1982 and Stausberg 2002 stress the fact of uninterrupted tradition, but Stausberg is much more aware of partial ruptures, changes, leaps along the way. 14 Iran-experts puzzle together stray references even much later fiction, cf. Boyce 1989, pp. 179–246; Stausberg 2002, pp. 21–68. The latter gives a most recommendable sketch of the steady growth of retrospective biographical invention. His principle is: ‘‘Founders of a new faith do not primarily establish a religion but it is the other way around: religions usually create their founders.’’ (op. cit. p. 21). 15 Cf. Stausberg 2002, pp. 163–86; Briant 2002, pp. 93–6; Lincoln 2007, especially pp. 44–9. Quite in line with Sumerian and Akkadian emporers the Achaemenids proclaimed to be chosen by their God to maintain and restore divine order to the benefit of all their subjects. However, that their gardens (‘paradises’) were ‘‘a foretaste of the delights awaiting the righteous after death’’ (Lincoln, op. cit. p. 78) may well be an over-interpretation. Works Cited Ahlstro¨m, G. W. (1993). The History of Ancient Palestine. Sheffield: Academic Press. Ahn, G. (1992). Religio¨se Herrscherlegitimation im acha¨menidischen Iran. Acta Iranica 31. Leiden: Brill. Albertz, R. (1992). Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. 2 vols. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (English translation by J. Bowden, 1994, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Louisville: Westminster Press.) Assman, J. (1997). Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Berquist, J. L. (1995). Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Boyce, M. (1982). A History of Zoroastrianism vol. 2. Handbuch der Orientalistik (vol. I,8,1,2,2A). Leiden: Brill. Boyce, M. (1989). A History of Zoroastrianism vol. 2. Handbuch der Orientalistik (vol. I,8,1,2,2A), 2nd edn. Leiden: Brill. Briant, P. (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Bright, J. (1959). A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  Zoroastrianism and the Bible 113 Brockhaus, H. (1850). Vendidad Sade. Die heiligen Schriften Zoroaster’s Yac¸na, Vispered und Vendidad. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. (reprinted in 1990 at Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag) Carr, D. M. (2010). An Introduction to the Old Testament. Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts of the Hebrew Bible. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Carter, C. E. (1999). The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study. JSOT S 294. Sheffield: Academic Press. Gerstenberger, E. S. (2005). Israel in der Perserzeit. 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Biblische Enzyklopa¨die (vol. 8). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Gottwald, N. K. (1979). The Tribes of Yahweh. A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250–1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Groneberg, B. R. H. (2004). Die Go¨tter des Zweistromlandes. Du¨sseldorf ⁄ Zu¨rich: Artemis & Winkler. Halpern, B. (2009). From gods to God The Dynamics of Iron Age cosmologies. FAT 63. Tu¨bingen: Mohr. Humbach, H. (1991). The Gathas of Zarathushtra and Other Old Avestan Textxs (vol. 1). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universita¨tesverlag. Jacobsen, T. (1976). The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Krebernik, M. & van Orschoot, J. (eds) (2002). Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. AOAT 298. Mu¨nster: Ugarit Verlag. Lanczkowski, G. (1987). Iranische Religionen. In: G. Mu¨ller (ed.), Theologische Realenzyklopa¨die, vol. 16, pp. 247–58. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lang, B. (2002). Jahwe, der biblische Gott. Mu¨nchen: Beckscher Verlag. Lincoln, B. (2007). Religion, Empire, and Torture. The Case of Achaemenian Persia, with a Postscript on Abu Ghraib. Chicago: University Press. Lipschits, O. & Oeming, M. (eds) (2006). Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Miller, M. & Hayes, J.H. (2006). A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd edn. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Narten, J. (1986). Der Yasna Hapta¢haiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Noth, M. (1954). Geschichte Israels, 2nd edn. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (English translation by …… 1958. The History of Israel. London: A&C Black). Oppenheim, A. L. (1964). Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University Press. Sasson, Jack M. (1995). Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4 vols). New York: Scribner. Sawyer, John F. A. (ed.) (2006). The Blackwell Companion to the Bible and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Seters, J. van. (1983). In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Smith, M. S. (1990). The Early History of God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. ——. (1994 and 2009). The Ugaritic Baal Cycle 2 vols (Vol. 2 together with W.T. Pitard). Brill: Leiden. Stausberg, M. (2002). Die Religion Zarathushtras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale (vol. 1). Stutttgart: W. Kohlham- mer Verlag. Wacker, M.-T. (2004). Von Go¨ttinnen, Go¨ttern und dem einzigen Gott. Studien zum biblischen Monotheismus aus feminis- tischer Sicht. Theologische Frauenforschung in Europa 14. Mu¨nster: LIT Verlag. Widengren, G. (ed.) (1961). Iranische Geisteswelt. Von den Anfa¨ngen bis zum Islam. Baden-Baden: Holle Verlag. ——. (1965). Die Religionen Irans. Die Religionen der Menschheit (vol. 14). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Williamson, H. G. M. (ed.) (2007). Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Proceedings of the British Academy 143. Oxford: University Press. Zenger, E, Fabry, H.-J., Braulik, G., Hentschel, G., Steins, G., Engel, H., Schwienhorst-Scho¨nberger, L., Schroer, S., Marbo¨ck, J., Jo¨ngling, H.-W., Backhaus, F.-J., Meyer, I., Hossfeld, F.-L. and Niehr, H. (2004). Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 5th edn. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Zgoll, A. (2006). Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien (AOAT 333). Mu¨nster: Ugarit-Verlag. ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/4 (2011): 104–113, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00266.x Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd