Damien F. Mackey
According to Syro-Arabic traditions, the scribe Baruch – with whom I have identified Zophar the Naamathite of the Book of Job – was the same as the ‘eastern’ wise man, philosopher and religious founder, Zoroaster (also known as ‘Zarathustra’).
Monotheism and the foundations of philosophical wisdom can be traced back to the ‘Jews’ (collectively taken here to include the Hebrews/Israelites). With regard to this, I have written:
Church Fathers Were Right About Jewish Origins of Greek Philosophy
there referring to various articles in which I have pursued the line of some Church Fathers that Greco-Roman philosophy actually arose from a Hebrew (biblical) source. That article also recalls the view of saints Ambrose and Augustine – who then had to reject it on their conventional chronological grounds – that Plato had learned from the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt. Now, we do know that Baruch, the scribe, was in Egypt with Jeremiah.
Moreover, Baruch was – according to certain Christian legends – the very Zoroaster (Zarathustra) himself, a significant philosophico-religious character in ancient folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_ben_Neriah):
Some Christian legends (especially from Syria and Arabia) identify Baruch with Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him. Baruch, angry because the gift of prophecy had been denied him, and on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster. The prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, and of his adoration by the Magi, is also ascribed to Baruch-Zoroaster. It is difficult to explain the origin of this curious identification of a prophet with a magician, such as Zoroaster was held to be, among the Jews, Christians, and Arabs.
…. the Jewish legend mentioned above (under Baruch in Rabbinical Literature), according to which the Ethiopian in Jer. xxxviii. 7 is undoubtedly identical with Baruch, is connected with this Arabic–Christian legend. As early as the Clementine “Recognitiones” (iv. 27), Zoroaster was believed to be a descendant of Ham; and, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush, the Ethiopian, is a son of Ham. According to the “Recognitiones”, the Persians believed that Zoroaster had been taken into heaven in a chariot (“ad cœlum vehiculo sublevatum”); and according to the Jewish legend, the above-mentioned Ethiopian was transported alive into paradise, an occurrence that, like the translation of Elijah, must have taken place by means of a “vehiculum.”
[End of quote]
In (i) in this series, https://www.academia.edu/12270426/Friends_of_the_Prophet_Job._Part
I did put forward the suggestion that Zophar, as the prophet Zephaniah, as son of “Cushi” (Zephaniah 1:1), might be from where the notion of “Ethiopian” (Cushite) had arisen.
Certainly Baruch “on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine”, as according to the above quote. Though this was not from his own choice – he was forcibly taken to Egypt with the prophet Jeremiah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_ben_Neriah “He was carried with Jeremiah to Egypt, where, according to a tradition preserved by Jerome, he soon died. Two other traditions state that he later went, or was carried, to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar II after the latter’s conquest of Egypt”. I think that the latter is more likely to be the case, based on the prophet Jeremiah’s assurance to him (Jeremiah 45:5): “For I will bring disaster on all people, declares the Lord, but wherever you [Baruch] go I will let you escape with your life.”
Baruch, if he were also Zerubbabel (as according to this “Zophar” series), would have survived right on until the Persian period. And that is precisely when we encounter Zoroaster. I would therefore suggest that Baruch, far from having “left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster”, a monotheistic religion, had, rather, carried in his own person his fervent Yahwism, into Persia, where his religion inevitably underwent eastern (Indo-Iranian Persian) modifications and distortions.
In later centuries Zoroastrianism would be found in perhaps a more occult form in the Mediterranean world.
The Most Rev. Franz Cardinal König tells us all about Zoroaster in the following piece http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658060/Zoroaster):
Zoroaster, Old Iranian Zarathushtra, or Zarathustra (born c. 628 bc, probably Rhages, Iran—died c. 551, site unknown), Iranian religious reformer and founder of Zoroastrianism, or Parsiism, as it is known in India. (See Zoroastrianism; Parsi.)
A major personality in the history of the religions of the world, Zoroaster has been the object of much attention for two reasons. On the one hand, he became a legendary figure believed to be connected with occult knowledge and magical practices in the Near Eastern and Mediterranean world in the Hellenistic Age (c. 300 bc–c. ad 300). On the other hand, his monotheistic concept of God has attracted the attention of modern historians of religion, who have speculated on the connections between his teaching and Judaism and Christianity. Though extreme claims of pan-Iranianism (i.e., that Zoroastrian or Iranian ideas influenced Greek, Roman, and Jewish thought) may be disregarded, the pervasive influence of Zoroaster’s religious thought must nevertheless be recognized.
The student of Zoroastrianism is confronted by several problems concerning the religion’s founder. One question is what part of Zoroastrianism derives from Zoroaster’s tribal religion and what part was new as a result of his visions and creative religious genius. Another question is the extent to which the later Zoroastrian religion (Mazdaism) of the Sāsānian period (ad 224–651) genuinely reflected the teachings of Zoroaster. A third question is the extent to which the sources—the Avesta (the Zoroastrian scriptures) with the Gāthās (older hymns), the Middle Persian Pahlavi Books, and reports of various Greek authors—offer an authentic guide to Zoroaster’s ideas.
A biographical account of Zoroaster is tenuous at best or speculative at the other extreme. The date of Zoroaster’s life cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. According to Zoroastrian tradition, he flourished “258 years before Alexander.” Alexander the Great conquered Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenids, a dynasty that ruled Persia from 559 to 330 bc, in 330 bc. Following this dating, Zoroaster converted Vishtāspa, most likely a king of Chorasmia (an area south of the Aral Sea in Central Asia), in 588 bc. According to tradition, he was 40 years old when this event occurred, thus indicating that his birthdate was 628 bc. Zoroaster was born into a modestly situated family of knights, the Spitama, probably at Rhages (now Rayy, a suburb of Tehrān), a town in Media. The area in which he lived was not yet urban, its economy being based on animal husbandry and pastoral occupations. Nomads, who frequently raided those engaged in such occupations, were viewed by Zoroaster as aggressive violators of order, and he called them followers of the Lie.
According to the sources, Zoroaster probably was a priest. Having received a vision from Ahura Mazdā, the Wise Lord, who appointed him to preach the truth, Zoroaster apparently was opposed in his teachings by the civil and religious authorities in the area in which he preached. It is not clear whether these authorities were from his native region or from Chorasmia prior to the conversion of Vishtāspa. Confident in the truth revealed to him by Ahura Mazdā, Zoroaster apparently did not try to overthrow belief in the older Iranian religion, which was polytheistic; he did, however, place Ahura Mazdā at the centre of a kingdom of justice that promised immortality and bliss. Though he attempted to reform ancient Iranian religion on the basis of the existing social and economic values, Zoroaster’s teachings at first aroused opposition from those whom he called the followers of the Lie (dregvant).
Ahura Mazdā and the Beneficent Immortals.
Zoroaster’s teachings, as noted above, centred on Ahura Mazdā, who is the highest god and alone is worthy of worship. He is, according to the Gāthās, the creator of heaven and earth; i.e., of the material and the spiritual world. He is the source of the alternation of light and darkness, the sovereign lawgiver, and the very centre of nature, as well as the originator of the moral order and judge of the entire world. The kind of polytheism found in the Indian Vedas (Hindu scriptures having the same religious background as the Gāthās) is totally absent; the Gāthās, for example, mention no female deity sharing Ahura Mazdā’s rule. He is surrounded by six or seven beings, or entities, which the later Avesta calls amesha spentas, “beneficent immortals.” The names of the amesha spentas frequently recur throughout the Gāthās and may be said to characterize Zoroaster’s thought and his concept of god. In the words of the Gāthās, Ahura Mazdā is the father of Spenta Mainyu (Holy Spirit), of Asha Vahishta (Justice, Truth), of Vohu Manah (Righteous Thinking), and of Armaiti (Spenta Armaiti, Devotion). The other three beings (entities) of this group are said to personify qualities attributed to Ahura Mazdā: they are Khshathra Vairya (Desirable Dominion), Haurvatāt (Wholeness), and Ameretāt (Immortality). This does not exclude the possibility that they, too, are creatures of Ahura Mazdā. The good qualities represented by these beings are also to be earned and possessed by Ahura Mazdā’s followers. This means that the gods and mankind are both bound to observe the same ethical principles. If the amesha spentas show the working of the deity, while at the same time constituting the order binding the adherents of the Wise Lord, then the world of Ahura Mazdā and the world of his followers (the ashavan) come close to each other. The very significant eschatological aspect of Zoroastrianism is well demonstrated by the concept of Khshathra (Dominion), which is repeatedly accompanied by the adjective Desirable; it is a kingdom yet to come.
Monotheism and dualism.
The conspicuous monotheism of Zoroaster’s teaching is apparently disturbed by a pronounced dualism: the Wise Lord has an opponent, Ahriman, who embodies the principle of evil, and whose followers, having freely chosen him, also are evil. This ethical dualism is rooted in the Zoroastrian cosmology. He taught that in the beginning there was a meeting of the two spirits, who were free to choose—in the words of the Gāthās—“life or not life.” This original choice gave birth to a good and an evil principle. Corresponding to the former is a Kingdom of Justice and Truth; to the latter, the Kingdom of the Lie (Druj), populated by the daevas, the evil spirits (originally prominent old Indo-Iranian gods). Monotheism, however, prevails over the cosmogonic and ethical dualism because Ahura Mazdā is father of both spirits, who were divided into the two opposed principles only through their choice and decision.
The Wise Lord, together with the amesha spentas, will at last vanquish the spirit of evil: this message, implying the end of the cosmic and ethical dualism, seems to constitute Zoroaster’s main religious reform. His monotheistic solution resolves the old strict dualism. The dualist principle, however, reappears in an acute form in a later period, after Zoroaster. It is achieved only at the expense of Ahura Mazdā, by then called Ohrmazd, who is brought down to the level of his opponent, Ahriman. At the beginning of time, the world was divided into the dominion of the good and of the evil. Between these, each man is bound to decide. He is free and must choose either the Wise Lord and his rule or Ahriman, the Lie. The same is true of the spiritual beings, who are good or bad according to their choices. From man’s freedom of decision it follows that he is finally responsible for his fate. Through his good deeds, the righteous person (ashavan) earns an everlasting reward, namely integrity and immortality. He who opts for the lie is condemned by his own conscience as well as by the judgment of the Wise Lord and must expect to continue in the most miserable form of existence, one more or less corresponding to the Christian concept of hell. According to Avestan belief, there is no reversal and no deviation possible once a man has made his decision. Thus, the world is divided into two hostile blocks, whose members represent two warring dominions. On the side of the Wise Lord are the settled herdsmen or farmers, caring for their cattle and living in a definite social order. The follower of the Lie (Druj) is a thieving nomad, an enemy of orderly agriculture and animal husbandry.
The Gāthās, the early hymns, many of which may have been written by Zoroaster, are permeated by eschatological thinking. Almost every passage contains some reference to the fate awaiting men in the afterlife. Each act, speech, and thought is viewed as being related to an existence after death. The earthly state is connected with a state beyond, in which the Wise Lord will reward the good act, speech, and thought and punish the bad. This motive for doing good seems to be the strongest available to Zoroaster in his message. After death, the soul of man must pass over the Bridge of the Requiter (Činvat), which everyone looks upon with fear and anxiety. After judgment is passed by Ahura Mazdā, the good enter the kingdom of everlasting joy and light, and the bad are consigned to the regions of horror and darkness. Zoroaster, however, goes beyond this, announcing an end phase for the visible world, “the last turn of creation.” In this last phase, Ahriman will be destroyed, and the world will be wonderfully renewed and be inhabited by the good, who will live in paradisiacal joy. Later forms of Zoroastrianism teach a resurrection of the dead, a teaching for which some basis may be found in the Gāthās. Through the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of the world bestows a last fulfillment on the followers of the Wise Lord.
Zoroaster forbade all sacrifices in honour of Ahriman or of his adherents, the daevas, who from pre-Zoroastrian times had degenerated into hostile deities. In the prevailing religious tradition, Zoroaster probably found that the practice of sacrificing cattle, combined with the consumption of intoxicating drinks (haoma), led to orgiastic excess. In his reform, Zoroaster did not, as some scholars would have it, abolish all animal sacrifice but simply the orgiastic and intoxicating rites that accompanied it. The haoma sacrifice, too, was to be thought of as a symbolic offering; it may have consisted of unfermented drink or an intoxicating beverage or plant. Zoroaster retained the ancient cult of fire. This cult and its various rites were later extended and given a definite order by the priestly class of the Magi. Its centre, the eternal flame in the Temple of Fire, was constantly linked with the priestly service and with the haoma sacrifice.
Influence and assessments.
After the conversion of Vishtāspa to such teachings, Zoroaster remained at the court of the king. Other officials were converted, and a daughter of Zoroaster apparently married Jāmāsp, a minister of the king. According to tradition, Zoroaster lived for 77 years, thus indicating that he died about 551 bc. After his death, many legends arose about him. According to these legends, nature rejoiced at his birth, and he preached to many nations, founded sacred fires, and fought in a sacred war. He was viewed as a model for priests, warriors, and agriculturalists, as well as a skilled craftsman and healer. The Greeks regarded him as a philosopher, mathematician, astrologer, or magician. Jews and Christians regarded him as an astrologer, magician, prophet, or arch heretic. Not until the 18th century did a more scholarly assessment of Zoroaster’s career and influence emerge.
[End of quote]
One can discern many underlying aspects of Yahwism here, with the one God, but also a secondary evil force (not to be equated with God), known to the Jews (including Zophar) from e.g. the Book of Job: namely, Satan, the Adversary. Also, the apocalyptical theme, recalling the ‘Day of Wrath’, referred to by Zophar in the Book of Job, and as Zephaniah.
Some interesting “Zoroastrian-Biblical Connections” are suggested in the following 7 points (http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/biblicalconnection.htm):
- The new Zoroastrianism at this era, believed in one universal God, Ahura Mazda. But the six divine attributes were often envisioned as separate entities, perhaps in the form of archangels that with Ahura Mazda at the center, at times illogically were called seven Amesha Spenta.
- There was battle between the forces of good and evil, with the ultimate victory of good over evil. Those who sided with the forces of good, were supporting the Divine cause. The evil forces were regarded as anger, envy, lies and environmental pollution, etc. In effect the Zoroastrian followers had developed a form of angelology and demonology.
- The Persians believed in liberty and freedom of choice, as reflected in the Gathas and the texts of later Avesta.
- Another Zoroastrian concept was The Kingdom of God or chosen government, wherein all the virtuous men and women reside freely and choose leaders for their righteousness, and the oppressed will be rehabilitated. The goal was for everyone to work toward establishing the “chosen government” where good overcomes the evil.
- They believed in immortality of soul, life after death, that the souls of the dead will be judged for their deeds of the past on the bridge of judgement (Chinovat), where they were guided by their conscience and judged by three angels (Mithra, Rashn, Sraosha), who were to differentiate them and determine the eternal dwellings of the two groups in heaven or hell.
- Resurrection (Rastakhiz) or the end of the world, when the dead revive and the new world will have a fresh life and new beginning (Farsho Kerat or fresh act).
- In the Gathas, Saoshyant is a general term and means benefactor. There are benefactors of the past, present and future, but no reference is made to any promised person who shall advent. The concept of future benefactors however at this time had been transformed into the savior of future who will perform the task of resurrection.
[End of quote]
Baruch and Jesus Christ
Tradition further proposes a connection between Baruch and Jesus and his mother Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_ben_Neriah):
Another reminiscence of the Jewish legend is found in Baruch-Zoroaster’s words concerning Jesus: “He shall descend from my family”, since, according to the Haggadah, Baruch was a priest; and Maria, the mother of Jesus, was of priestly family.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church Baruch is venerated as a saint, and as such is commemorated on September 28 (which, for those who follow the traditional Julian Calendar, falls on October 11 of the Gregorian Calendar).
[End of quote]
Though my conclusion from this series would be that Baruch was of the royal line of David, rather than of the priestly line of Levi. My tentative connection of Baruch’s ancestor, Neriah (Baruch 1:1) with the Neri, grandfather of Zerubbabel in Luke 3:27, in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, would allow for Baruch-Zoroaster truly to be able to say, as above, “He shall descend from my family …”. And some commentators even think that Luke was here tracing Mary’s own lineage (https://bible.org/question/mary%E2%80%99s-lineage-one-gospels):
… Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.
[End of quote]
Baruch, as Zophar, as Zerubbabel (as according to this series), was quite possibly, then, the matrix for the legendary Zoroaster. Zerubbabel (Heb: זְרֻבָּבֶל) can mean “Seed of Babylon”, and Zoroaster/Zarathustra may have the same sort of construction, meaning “Seed of …”. Rawlinson, who explained it, thought “Zarathustra” to be a Semitic name (http://zoroaster-zarathushtra.blogspot.com.au/p/etymology-of-name-zoroaster.html): “… historian Henry Rawlinson saw in the name Zarathushtra proof that the founder of the Iranian religion was in fact a Semite, i.e Zara-thustra = Ziru-istar as meaning ‘seed of Ishtar, descendant of Venus,’ JRAS., Gt. Brit, and Ireland, xv. 227, 246 (cf. George Eawlinson, Herodotus, vol. iii. p. 455)”.