TERCERA ANTICIPO

In tracing the development in the characters of God and evil from biblical concepts to Jewish apocalyptic, it becomes apparent that the dualism that lies at the heart of apocalyptic was not a part of traditional Jewish thinking. This makes it seem probable that foreign cultures exerted an influence and, considering that the dualism truly developed during the Post-exilic period, it is tempting to assume that Persian religion fulfilled this function. To assume such a thing, however, would be to ignore the full context and circumstances leading to this

formulation.

It has already been argued, in the previous chapter, that dualism can be considered a natural development out of monotheism given the right circumstances. As such, it may be said that dualism is not culture-specific, but rather brought about by circumstances that awaken in people the desire to distance themselves and their god from evil (cf. Fontaine 2011: 268). Israel’s religion appears to have been predominantly monotheistic by the time of the

Babylonian exile and, as argued above, the circumstances of the exile were conducive to the development of dualistic thought. Foreign influence was therefore not strictly necessary as a catalyst in this regard.

It would be imprudent, however, to dismiss foreign influence entirely. The apocalyptic texts used in this study, particularly 1 Enoch, primarily date to the Hellenistic era. Silverman (2012a: 25) asserts that one must not underestimate the importance of a Hellenistic context. The Hellenistic age is partly characterized by the “global-village” idea, in that physical and intellectual boundaries disappeared to a great extent, making possible the spread of foreign ideas (Collins 1984: 28). Meyers (2011: 100) suggests that it is precisely this development that exposed the Jews to Persian ideas through the works of Greek writers, especially Herodotus. If Persian religious notions found their way into Jewish apocalyptic in one form or another, the Hellenistic era would have provided an ideal setting. In fact, one must question whether it is realistic to suppose that foreign ideas failed to influence Jewish thinking on any level. Although it seems unlikely that Persian religion is essentially responsible for the existence of dualism within Jewish apocalyptic, it is not entirely implausible that it played a role in the formulation of the dualism and its various aspects. According to Meyers (2011: 105), it is possible and perhaps even likely that Zoroastrianism exerted a degree of influence in the cosmological speculation out of which the dualism was formulated. The resemblances in the respective portrayals of God and Ahura Mazda raise

26

questions in this regard. Like God in 1 Enoch, and apocalyptic in general, Ahura Mazda is the creator of everything and the ultimate judge over his creation: he even created the Evil Spirit, although the latter was not created evil, but became so by choice (Zaehner 1961: 55). This seems very similar to God’s relationship with the Watchers, who were also created good and turned to evil by choice. Boyce (1982: 193) suggests that Second Isaiah and other prophets adopted the concept of Yahweh as creator and God from Zoroastrian depictions of Ahura Mazda, a suggestion evidently supported by the fact that the concept of Yahweh as creator was completely foreign in monarchic Yahwism (Fohrer 1973: 179).

There is, however, one aspect of the relationship between God and evil that seems to be at odds with the relationship between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu: whereas Jewish apocalyptic is clearly superior to evil and allows it to exist, the dualistic principles in later Zoroastrianism21 always appear perfectly equal. According to Shaked (1984: 315), this is not necessarily the case. The basis of his argument is simple: Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is said to have only a non-material (mēnōg) existence, meaning that he technically has no presence in the material (gētīg) world, whereas Ahura Mazda basically creates the material world out of himself and is therefore present in its various aspects (cf. GBd 1.44). Moreover, Ahura Mazda is omniscient, which Ahriman is not (GBd 1.13, 15), and it is stated outright that Ahriman cannot undo what Ahura Mazda has done (GBd 1.24), which should be possible for principles of equal strength.

Given the nature of such a relationship between good and evil and the similarities that already existed between Ahura Mazda and God, it is possible that the Jewish apocalyptic writers seeking to establish a source of evil separate from God, found a foundation for their formulation in Persian dualism. Until the Persian doctrine can be assigned a specific date, however, the probability remains uncertain (Shaked 1984: 316).

The parallels between the various manifestations of evil in Jewish apocalyptic and Persian religion will be discussed over the course of the following chapters. In this chapter, it may be noted that the concept of evil deriving from a source other than God appears to have been an internal development, independent of Persian religion. In this case, as with the dualism itself, the following may be concluded: although it seems possible that Persian religion influenced

21 _{Given the probability that it was a later, more developed form of Persian dualism that exercised an influence}

(if any) on Jewish apocalyptic, the dualistic principles denote Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu/Ahriman (cf. McCarter Jr 2011: 33).

27

the formulation of the dualism, it cannot with any measure of certainty be said to have served as its primary catalyst.

28

CHAPTER THREE: ANGELS