2019 Defeating Death Eschatology in Zoro

IRANO-JUDAICA VII
Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East
Irano-Judaica VII
Studies relating
to Jewish contacts
with Persian culture
throughout the ages
Edited by
Julia Rubanovich
and Geoffrey Herman
Jerusalem 2019
Published with the aid of:
The Amnon Netzer Center for Iranian Jewish History and Heritage, USA
© Copyright by the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 2019

Design & Typesetting: Hanoch Waldenberg
ISBN 978-965-235-208-8
C on t e n t s
Contents
001 Notes on contributors

009 Introduction
Part One
Law, Ritual and Eschatology in Zoroastrianism and Judaism
023 Defeating Death: Eschatology in Zoroastrianism, Judaism
and Christianity
Almut Hintze
073 A Pahlavi Legal Term in Jesubōxt’s Corpus Iuris
Maria Macuch
103 Cultural Intertwinedness and the Problem of Proving Reception.
A Case Study on Late Antique Foundations: ruwānagān, heqdēsh,
piae causae, and waq f
Benjamin Jokisch
129 Samuel’s Scythe-handle: Sasanian Mortgage Law in the Bavli
Yaakov Elman
145 ‘Thought Is Akin to Action’: The Importance of Thought
in Zoroastrianism and the Development of a Babylonian
Rabbinic Motif
David Brodsky
Part Two
Textual Patterns and Transmission
in Avestan and Middle Persian Sources
199 Observations on the Form of Avestan Texts in the Context of
Neighboring Traditions
Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst
V
C on t e n t s
221 Les raisonnements taxinomiques dans le Dēnkard 3

Mihaela Timuș
251 Christlich-jüdische Spuren in Pahlavi-Dokumenten
des 7. Jhs. n. Chr.
Dieter Weber
267 The Hērbedestān in the Hērbedestān: Priestly Teaching
from the Avesta to the Zand
Yaakov Elman
Part Three
Jewish-Iranian Historical and Literary
Interrelations through the Centuries
297 Luhrāsp and the Destruction of Jerusalem: A Note on
Jewish-Iranian Syncretism
Domenico Agostini
311 Back to Bustanay: The History of a Legend
Geoffrey Herman
341 On Representations of Jews in Medieval Persian Epic Poetry
Julia Rubanovich
371 The Image of the Jew in Iranian Folklore
Orly R. Rahimiyan
Part Four
Texts and Motifs: Between Interaction and Polemics
393 ʻThree Partners in a Personʼ: The Metamorphoses of
a Tradition and the History of an Idea
Reuven Kiperwasser
439 The Usurpation of Solomon’s Throne by Ashmedai (b.Giṭ.
68a-b): A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian and Christian Contexts
Yishai Kiel
VI
C on t e n t s
473 Jews and Christians in Late Sasanian Nisibis:

The Evidence of the Life of Mār Yāreth the Alexandrian
Sergey Minov
507 Therefore He Himself is the Demon, Lord of Hell:
On Manichaean and Zoroastrian Anti-Judaism
Samuel Thrope
Part Five
Judaeo-Persian Language and Literature
527 La dialectologie du persan préclassique à la lumière des nouvelles
données judéo-persanes
Gilbert Lazard
545 A Fragment of the Book of Jeremiah in Early Judaeo-Persian
Shaul Shaked
579 Reflections on a Judaeo-Persian Manuscript of Rūmī’s Mathnavī
Vera B. Moreen
597 Observations on the Epic Legacy in Judaeo-Persian Poetry
Nahid Pirnazar
637 Shāhīn’s Interpretation of Shira and Haʾazinu
Vera B. Moreen
Hebrew Section
‫ ט‬ Between Jews and Gentiles in Talmudic Babylonia: Reading
between the Lines
Alex Tal
VII
E s ch at ol o g y in Z or o a s t r i a nis m, Ju d a is m a nd Chr is t i a ni t y
Defeating Death:
Eschatology in Zoroastrianism,
Judaism and Christianity
ALMUT HINTZE
1 . I n t r o d u c t io n
Teachings about the Last Things, or eschatology, are an important part
not only of Zoroastrianism, but also of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Themes associated with eschatology in these four traditions form a
sequence of events and concepts that include judgement—both individual
after a person has died and universal at the end of time,—heaven as a place
of reward and hell as one of punishment, and a ‘perfector’ who resurrects
the dead and ushers in a new era of perfect existence and everlasting life
in the presence of God. The similarities between the so-called Abrahamic
religions, on the one hand, and those of Zoroastrianism, on the other,
are even more remarkable if one considers that such a sequence of
eschatological events is not found in the texts of the Israelites before
they made contact with the Persians in the mid-sixth century before the
Christian era. Accordingly, the question of cross-fertilization has been
studied by both Biblical and Iranian scholars, but to date no consensus
of opinion has yet been reached. Thus, Antonio Panaino comments that
eschatology remains ‘one of the key points of the querelle concerning the
importance of the relations between these two religious cultures’ (Panaino
2004b: 223). 1
1 Panaino (2004b: 217–19) and Silverman (2012: 2–8) survey the literature for
and against influence between the two traditions. I am grateful to my colleague
23
A l mu t Hin t z e
One of the problems in this debate is the dating of the earliest attestations
of certain Zoroastrian ideas. 2 It is generally held by scholars that in their
fully developed form the central tenets of the religion are known to us only
from the Pahlavi texts. 3 These are writings in the Middle Persian language
(the precursor of New Persian) most of which date from the ninth to tenth
centuries of the Christian era. They are thus about 1,500 years later than
the earliest sources of Judaism attesting eschatological ideas. Based on the
grounds of the late date of such texts some scholars caution against, or
flatly reject, Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and maintain instead that
any doctrinal parallels are purely accidental. 4
Another problem is an ongoing debate about the interpretation of the
earliest literature of the Zoroastrians, the Avesta, whose roots reach far
back into Indo-Iranian prehistory and whose ritual structure and cultic
setting is today rightly emphasized. One of the foremost scholars of the
Older Avesta, Jean Kellens, interpreting the Avesta in the light of the Vedic
ritual tradition, argues that neither has any moral or ethical dimension. 5
Catherine Hezser for helpful comments on a draft of this article, and especially for
drawing my attention to the theory of intertextuality discussed below in section 3.
2 A good survey of the problems of Iranian literature is given by Shaked 1984:
311–13.
3 Cf., for instance, Shaked 1998: 568. Skjærvø (2013: 317–46) summarizes the
contents of the main Old and Middle Iranian primary sources on the Zoroastrian
ideas of Afterlife, and Hintze (2017a) provides a succinct survey.
4 E.g., Yamauchi 1990: 458–81, esp. 462–64 and 1998, 47f.; Grabbe 1992: 100–102;
Collins 1984: 23ff. Smith states that it would be ‘hardly worthwhile to discuss the
many, brief, isolated parallels between Iranian and biblical material’ (Smith 1990:
202). According to Johnston, ‘Israel’s apocalyptists may have known of Zoroastrian
eschatology’ but ‘the resurrection faith they expressed emerged as significantly
different to that of Persian belief ’ (Johnston 2002: 237). By contrast, Shaked
maintains that it ‘does not seem at all likely that so many similarities could have
been formed in parallel independently’ (Shaked 1984: 324).
5 Kellens 1991: 24f. (= 2000: 46) clarifies his approach by stating: ‘Si innovante que
paraisse la doctrine religieuse ― et il faudra nuancer ―, la langue, la rhétorique,
les conceptions qui nourissent les images et les métaphores sont étonnamment
24
In Kellens’s view, Avestan eschatology is entirely and solely defined by

the purpose of the sacrifice, which he considers symbolically prefigures
death and the final journey of the offerer’s soul (uruuan-). The latter is
ritually substituted by that of the cow, the sacrificial victim. According
to Kellens, it is not ethical but exclusively cultic practice that determine
whether the soul reaches paradise, the ‘House of Welcome’ (garō dəmāna-)
where Ahura Mazdā dwells. 6 Such a description of Avestan eschatology
seems at first sight to have little in common with the concepts either of
the Middle Persian texts, on the one hand, or of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, on the other. However, as Shaul Shaked comments, ‘the issue is not
yet definitely settled.’ 7 For, although Kellens suggests a religion without
a moral code, the fact that after death his reconstruction assigns the bad
sacrificers to a place that is different from that of the good sacrificers
implies concepts of posthumous judgement, reward and punishment as
well as ‘paradise’ and ‘hell’.
While scholars rightly emphasize the importance of the Indo-Iranian
roots of the Avesta and its ritual setting (Shaked 1994b: 8f.), 8 the ritualistic
interpretation is likely to highlight only one, yet important, aspect of the
conceptual world which underpins the texts. For the priests performed
the ritual not in isolation but as participants in a system of exchange
that also involved laypersons who commissioned and, most importantly,
conservatrices et semblables à celles que pratiquaient les r̥ṣi védiques. Il est à peine
exagéré de dire que l’Avesta ancien est le onzième maṇḍala, légèrement déviant
de vue dialectal, du R̥ gveda.’
6 Kellens 1994; idem 1991: 49–51 (= 2000: 71–75).
7 Shaked 2005: 189–91 criticizes Kellens’s approach on the grounds that there are
examples in other religions of new ideas being couched in traditional language, and
that the ‘rich and varied linguistic Iranian data tend to be completely disregarded
in the eyes of those who uphold the Vedicizing approach…’ He warns that we
‘should be careful not to confuse words with meanings’ and ‘not arrogantly assume
that our understanding of the Gathas, with the comparative linguistic tools at our
disposal, is inherently superior to the living tradition of Zoroastrianism.’
8 See Skjærvø 1997a; Kellens 2006: 14; idem 2015.
25
A l mu t Hin t z e
paid the priests for the rituals (Hintze 2004). The laypeople must have
shared the ideology which underpins the rituals, and such an ideology
must have impacted on all aspects of their lives. This is indicated, for
example, by the complex purity laws set out in the Vīdēvdād. 9 Hultgård has
pointed out that the Pahlavi texts do testify to a moral code and, in their
accounts of cosmology and eschatology, explicitly reference the Avesta as
an authoritative source, which they call dēn ‘religion,’ āgāhīh ‘knowledge’
and abastāg (‘Avesta’). Furthermore the basic agreement between the
various descriptions together with the linguistic character of the relevant
Pahlavi passages both indicate that the Middle Persian accounts are based
on a common normative, Avestan tradition (Hultgård 1983: 385–92, esp.
391f.). 10 Such correspondence suggests that there is doctrinal continuity
between the religion of the Avesta, on the one hand, and that of the Pahlavi
texts, on the other. In most of the latter, including the ‘Primal Creation,’
or Bundahišn, the sections dealing with religious ideas, in particular
cosmology and eschatology, are not original compositions but translations
and reworkings of a much older literature, the Avesta, whose language,
Avestan (Av.), had long ceased to be either spoken or understood in normal
speech by the time the Middle Persian versions were compiled.
The various texts constituting the Avesta presumably date from the mid-
second to the mid-first millennium BCE. 11 Each of them represents the
end-point of a lengthy period of oral composition which is rooted in the
9 Cf. Shaked 2005: 196: ‘There is no contradiction in principle between a religion

with faith in a cluster of abstract notions which have the status of divine and
beneficent entities, and one which holds a strong, almost obsessive, interest in
ritual.’
10 See also Hinnells 2000: 29–32. Shaked comments that ‘Much will always remain
undefinable in the earliest Zoroastrian scriptures, but it is important to realize
that the later tradition was built upon a textual foundation, and that one of our
aims should be to see the line which runs from those origins to the fully developed
tradition’ (Shaked 2005: 185).
11 On the chronology of the history of the Avesta, see Skjærvø 2003–4: 36f.
26
Proto-Indo-Iranian and, ultimately, Proto-Indo-European culture. 12 After

many centuries during which the text was newly composed during each
performance, at some point it became fixed, and was then transmitted
verbatim from generation to generation. The earliest texts of the Avesta are
usually referred to as ʻOlder Avestaʼ (OAv.) and are comprised of seventeen
hymns divided into five groups according to their metre (Gathas), a ritual
entitled the ‘Worship in Seven Chapters’ (Yasna Haptaŋhāiti) and two
prayers. 13 In addition, there are the ʻYounger Avestanʼ (YAv.) compositions
in the dialectally slightly different idiom of a later period, beginning
roughly in the early first millennium BCE. All texts of the Younger Avesta
presuppose that by the time they became fixed Zoroastrianism was a
religion firmly established among the Iranian peoples.
Because of the age of the Avesta, it is of paramount importance for
the study of inter-religious contacts that ideas found in the Pahlavi texts
can be traced back to the Avesta. Hitherto, however, the latter has been
relatively little used in this debate because it offers no systematic account
of Zoroastrian teachings. Instead, what one finds ― scattered throughout
different texts ― are allusions to concepts supposed to have been known
at the time the Avestan language was spoken and understood. Any scholar
attempting to reconstruct the underlying thought system on the basis of
such allusions has no option but to use additional sources for filling in
the gaps, either the Vedas with which the Avesta shares a common, Indo-
Iranian heritage, or the Pahlavi texts, or, ideally, both. However, different
12 On the different stages of composition and performance in an oral culture, see, for
instance, Hintze 2000: 67–85, esp. 72ff.; for a survey of the literature, see Hintze
2014b: 9.
13 The Zoroastrian tradition attributes the Gathas to the religion’s eponymous
founder, Zarathustra. With regard to Zarathustra’s role in the religion of the
Avesta, Kellens (2006) draws a distinction between a ‘modèle historique’ and a
‘modèle mythologique’ and considers the former to have mythological and the
latter historical validity. For a critical evaluation of the view of Zarathustra’s non-
existence, see Shaked 2005: 193, n. 28 and, of the two models, Hintze 2013.
27
A l mu t Hin t z e
pictures tend to emerge depending on which of the two ancillary sources

is given more weight when reconstructing the conceptual world of the
Avesta. 14
In what follows I discuss eschatological ideas firstly in Zoroastrianism
on the basis of our earliest sources, the Avesta, and, secondly, in Judaism.
I argue that the central tenets of Zoroastrian eschatology as we know
them from the Pahlavi texts are already fully developed in the Avesta.
They are deeply woven into the fabric of the Zoroastrian worldview and
constitute a set of beliefs that changed little over time. I suggest that there
is a parallel eschatological belief pattern in Judaism, but that the system is
less coherently organized. The latter two observations are interpreted as
indicating that Zoroastrianism prefigured and cross-fertilized the type of
eschatology that developed in Judaism and Christianity, and later in Islam.
2 . A n O u t line o f Z or o a s t r ia n E s ch at ol o g y
2 .1 . A hura Ma z dā , the c r e at or o f s p i r it ua l a n d phy si c a l l i fe
Followers of the ‘Mazdā-worshipping religion’ (Av. daēnā- māzdaiiasni-)
focus on the cult of one particular deity, Ahura Mazdā, loosely translated
as ‘Wise Lord,’ and of this deity’s work. The religion may thus be labelled
as monotheistic. 15 The most prominent characteristics of Ahura Mazdā
14 Cf. Shaked’s cautionary remarks with regard to the debate about Zarathustra’s
lifetime and message: ‘We attempt to mend a blanket using material which is
far too fragmented to deck the entire area of our historical ignorance. This area
operates like a black hole: it tends to implode any scaffolding we may try to erect.
The scholar is on precarious ground and in danger of losing balance’ (Shaked
2005: 185).
15 On Zoroastrian monotheism, cf. Boyce 1989: 195f.; Panaino 2004a, esp. 20–23,
28–32; Shaked 2005: 194; Kellens 1991: 53, 54f. (= 2000: 77, 79), but according
to Kellens (2006: 138), ‘[l]‌e mazdéisme avestique est un bon vieux polythéisme
ordinaire.’ Hintze (2014a) surveys the debate and argues that Zoroastrian
monotheism is combined with dualistic and polytheistic features.
28
are his ‘wisdom’ (mazdā-), which he personifies, and his goodness. A

corollary of both qualities is his creativity. Through his creative force, in
Avestan ‘life-giving force’ (spəṇta- mainiiu-), he engenders out of himself
Truth, Order (aṣ̌ a-), Good Thought (vohu- manah-), Right-mindedness
(ārmaiti-), Rule (xšaϑra-) and other spiritual qualities. The process of
producing these entities is described in biological terms in the Gathas:
Ahura Mazdā brings forth primordial spiritual life by ‘begetting’ or ‘giving
birth’ (ząϑa- Y 44.3, 43.5, 48.6). The metaphor implies that such spiritual
creations share his own substance or ‘genes.’ This interpretation derives
further support from the fact that Ahura Mazdā is addressed as the ‘father’
of the Life-Giving Force (Y 47.3), of Truth (Y 47.2, 44.3), Good Thought
(Y 31.8, 45.4) and Right-mindedness (Y 45.4). Thus, initially he created life
on the spiritual plane. Being both prospering and immortal, his spiritual
creation is also collectively referred to as Aməṣ̌ a Spəṇtas, which may be
translated as ‘Life-giving Immortals’ (Y 37.4, 39.3). 16
Second, out of spiritual life Ahura Mazdā produced physical or material
entities, including the earth, sky, fire, water, plants, animals, human beings
and others. He is praised as the creator 17 of both spiritual and physical life
on numerous occasions, for instance in the Gathic hymn Yasna 44:
Y 44.3 tat̰ ϑβā pərəsā ərəš mōi vaōcā ahurā

kasnā ząϑā ⁺ptā aṣ̌ ahiiā paōuruiiō
kasnā xᵛǝ̄ṇg ⁺strǝ̄mcā dāt̰ aduuānəm
kǝ̄ yā mā̊ uxšiieitī nərəfsaitī ϑβat̰
16 Skjærvø (2003b: 164f., n. 18) rightly points out that the concept associated with
the term spəṇta- is probably that of ‘swelling’ with life-force. Av. spəṇta-, as Av.
saōšiiaṇt-, is derived from the root sū ‘to swell’; see Mayrhofer 1992–2001: II, 678
and below, n. 34.
17 On the translation of dā as ‘establish, create,’ and dātar- ‘creator,’ see Hintze 2007:
162–67, where Kellens’s contention that Ahura Mazdā ‘n’est-pas un dieu créateur’
is discussed. Kellens analyzes Y 44.3–7 in the light of the ʻcosmic tent,ʼ which is
the only cosmogonic scheme he detects in the Avesta (see Kellens 1991: 43–47 [=
2000: 65–69]).
29
A l mu t Hin t z e
tācīt̰ mazdā vasəmī aniiācā vīduiiē

I ask you this, tell me truly, O Lord:
Who is the primordial father of Truth by begetting?
Who has established a path for the sun and the stars?
Who causes the moon not only to wax but also to wane?
I wish to know this and other things, O Wise one.

kasnā dərətā ząmcā adǝ̄ nabā̊scā
auuapastōiš kǝ̄ apō uruuarā̊scā
kǝ̄ vātāi duuąnmaibiiascā yaōgət̰ āsū
kasnā vaŋhǝ̄uš mazdā dąmiš manaŋhō
Who upholds the earth below and the clouds
from falling down? Who (upholds) the waters and the plants?
Who yokes the two swift (horses) to the wind and the clouds?
Who is the creator of Good Thought, O Wise one?

kǝ̄ huuāpā̊ raōcā̊scā dāt̰ təmā̊scā
kǝ̄ huuāpā̊ xᵛafnəmcā dāt̰ zaēmācā
kǝ̄ yā ušā̊ arǝ̄m.piϑβā xšapācā
yā̊ manaōϑrīš cazdōṇghuuaṇtəm arəϑahiiā
Who is the one of good works who established light and darkness?
Who is the one of good works who established sleep and activity?
Who is responsible for dawn, midday and night,
which remind the prudent of his duty?
The answer to these questions is, of course, Ahura Mazdā. He is presented

as the author of two manifestations of perfect life, one spiritual, such as
truth and good thought, and the other material, such as the sun, moon,
30
stars, the earth, clouds, waters, plants, wind, the daily rhythms of light and
darkness, sleep and activity, dawn, midday and night. Also in the ‘Worship
in Seven Chapters,’ the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Ahura Mazdā is praised as the
creator of both spiritual and material beings:
Y 37.1 iϑā āt̰ yazamaidē ahurəm mazdąm

yǝ̄ gąmcā aṣ̌ əmcā dāt̰
apascā dāt̰ uruuarā̊scā vaŋᵛhīš
raōcā̊scā dāt̰ būmīmcā
vīspācā vohū
In this way we now worship the Wise Lord,
who has created the cow and truth,
(who) has created the waters and the good plants,
(who) has created light and the earth
and all that is good.
The worshippers confirm their allegiance to Ahura Mazdā and their

commitment to carrying out those actions which are best for both lives,
i.e., the spiritual and the material ones:
Y 35.3 tat̰ at̰ ⁺varəmaidī ahurā mazdā

aṣ̌ ā srīrā
hiiat̰ ī mainimadicā vaōcōimācā ⁺varəzimācā
yā hātąm ⁺š́iiaōϑənanąm vahištā x́iiāt̰
ubōibiiā ahubiiā
O Wise Lord, because of beauteous truth
we have certainly chosen this:
that we may think, speak and perform those
existing actions which may be best
for both existences.
While earlier scholars interpreted the expression ‘two existences’ as

referring to life on earth, on the one hand, and that after death, on the
31
A l mu t Hin t z e
other, Johanna Narten has shown that in fact they denote spiritual and
material life (Narten 1986: 290–95). 18 This is particularly clear in the
Gathic stanza Y 28.2, where ‘both existences’ are explicitly identified as
‘the corporeal life and the life of thought’: 19
Y 28.2 yǝ̄ vā̊ mazdā ahurā pairī.jasāi vohū manaŋhā

maibiiō dāuuōi ahuuā̊ astuuatascā hiiat̰ cā manaŋhō
āiiaptā aṣ̌ āt̰ hacā yāiš rapaṇtō daidīt̰ xᵛāϑrē
I want to approach you, O Wise Lord, with good thought,
so that you may give me the blessings of both lives, of the corporeal
and of the one of thought,
on the basis of truth, by which one may set one’s friends at ease.
The significance of the distinction between spiritual and material life

for Zoroastrian eschatology has been established by Shaul Shaked and
Gherardo Gnoli on the basis of the Pahlavi literature. As we have seen,
the distinction is not only central to the conceptual world of the Pahlavi
accounts, 20 but also to that of the Avesta.
2 .2 . D ua l i sm : G o od a nd Ev i l
Both types of creation were originally made without any fault or defect
and, in particular, were free from decay and death. The Zoroastrian pro-
cosmic view of a good and perfect material world is quite unique 21 and of
fundamental importance for its eschatology: for at the end of time, the
physical world will be reinstated in perfection.
18 This view was earlier stated by Lommel 1930: 93ff., 144.

19 Cf. Y 43.3 ahiiā aŋhǝ̄uš astuuatō manaŋhascā, ‘of this corporeal life and (of that)
of thought.’
20 Shaked writes: ‘A s it occupies a prominent position in the Zoroastrian religion,
and particularly in the later literature …’ (Shaked 1971: 60). For further references,
see Hintze 2014a: 243, n. 73.
21 See Williams 2008.
32
Apart from the less known, but important, distinction between spiritual
and material worlds, the most salient feature of Zoroastrian doctrine is
its dualistic solution to the problem of Evil: the latter does not come from
God, but has a separate origin and is antagonistic to him and his work.
All Evil in the world, including deceit and death, comes from that external
source, parasitically clinging to God’s good physical creation and trying
to corrupt and eventually destroy it. 22 However, it can only latch onto
material beings, not to spiritual ones.
In the Avesta, the physical creations do not have corresponding negative
counterparts in the same way that Ahura Mazdā’s perfect spiritual creations
do. There the Life-Giving Force is opposed by the destructive power of
the Destructive Force, aŋra- mainiiu-. Truth (aṣ̌ a-) is negated by deceit
(druj-), and right-mindedness (ārmaiti-) by arrogance (tarǝ̄maiti-). These
opposites occur in pairs and this is what might be intended when they are
called ʻtwinsʼ in the Gathic hymn Y 30:
Y 30.2 sraōtā gǝ̄ušāiš vahištā auuaēnatā sūcā manaŋhā

āuuarənā̊ vīciϑahiiā narǝ̄m narəm xᵛax́iiāi tanuiiē …
Listen with your ears to the best things, consider, with clear thought,
the decisive choices, each man for himself …
Y 30.3 at̰ tā mainiiū ⁺ pauruiiē yā yǝ̄mā xᵛafənā asruuātəm

manahicā vacahicā š́iiaōϑanōi hī vahiiō akəmcā
ā̊scā hudā̊ŋhō ərəš vīš́iiātā nōit̰ duždā̊ŋhō
Now (I shall proclaim) these two forces which (were) in the beginning
(and) have become known as twin dreams:
two (types of ) thoughts (these two: the better and bad), two (types
of ) words (these two: the better and the bad), and two (types of )
actions, these two: better and the bad.
22 Cf. Shaked 1971: 71f. On the question of Angra Mainyu’s material creation in the
Avesta, see Hintze 2014a: 234 with references.
33
A l mu t Hin t z e
The generous discriminate rightly between these two, not the

evildoers. 23
Because in Y 30.3 the good and evil forces are called ‘twins,’ some
interpreters have argued that they are both sons of Ahura Mazdā, thus
descending from a common source, and that they are good and evil only
as a result of their respective choices. 24 However, such an interpretation
23 The translation of line 2 above follows the interpretation of hī vahiiō akəmcā

proposed by Ahmadi 2013: 245f.; cf. the summary by Hintze 2017b: 11–12.
Kellens and Pirart (1997) discuss the grammatical difficulties of Y 30.3 and its
earlier interpretations. The main syntactic problem is the position of the pronoun
hī. If enclitic, its place after š́iiaōϑanōi indicates the beginning of a new clause
and thus ‘thought, word and deed’ cannot form the common triadic expression
here. As an alternative, one might consider the possibility of taking the dual hī
as tonic (thus Hoffmann and Forssman 2004: 162; Martínez and de Vaan 2001:
70), and interpret the two adjectives vahiiō akəmcā as substantivized neuters (the
latter option, however, is rejected by Kellens and Pirart 1997: 49f.): ‘Now (I shall
proclaim) these two mind-sets which (were) in the beginning (and) have become
known as twin dreams: two (types of ) thoughts, two (types of ) words and two
(types of ) actions. These (are) what (is) better and what (is) evil.’ Kellens (1987:
252 [= 2000: 16f., cf. Kellens and Pirart 1988–91: III, 48 and 1997: 63, n.61])
understands the verse solely ‘in the narrow context of ritual activity.’ According
to him, the stanza ‘does not propound a myth on the origin of good and evil’ as
‘the verbs are not in the past tense.’ The latter statement, however, is at odds with
the inj. root aor. middle form asruuātəm ‘the two have become known’ whose
augment (see Hoffmann and Forssman 2004: 181, 227) locates the action in the
past. On augmented forms in comparable OAv. contexts, see Skjærvø 1995: 268,
n.11, according to whom asruuātəm refers to ‘(well-known/experienced) recent
past facts,’ in particular ‘an existing myth involving a pair of twins.’
24 For instance, Duchesne-Guillemin maintains that, as sons of Ahura Mazdā, the
twin spirits were originally both good, but that the evil one became wicked by
choice. In support of this interpretation, he adduces Y 30.5, according to which
the deceitful force chose to do the worst things while the most life-giving force
(mainiiuš spǝ̄ništō) chose truth (Duchesne-Guillemin 1985: 670). It is a moot
point whether the former was already bad before choosing evil action, although
it seems likely that he was bound to choose ‘to do the worst things’ because of
34
contradicts the Younger Avestan and Middle Persian texts, according to

which Evil does not come from God but from outside. That Ahura Mazdā
created only what is good is also clearly stated in the Older Avesta, for
instance, in Y 37.1, quoted above. In addition, he is addressed as the father
of the Life-Giving Force (Y 47.3), but nowhere that of the Destructive one.
This is not contradicted by Y 44.5, in which he is praised for creating ‘light
and darkness,’ because the context of this stanza (especially the following
verse referring to sleep and activity) suggests that what is meant here is
the regular alternation of day and night. 25
An interpretation of Y 30.3 consistent with Zoroastrian dualism is that
the Life-Giving and Destructive Forces form a primordial pair of mutually
exclusive opposites 26 like ‘plus’ and ‘minus,’ ‘light’ and ‘dark’ or Ahura
Mazdā’s other spiritual creations, such as truth and deceit, good thought
and evil thought, right-mindedness and arrogance. This dichotomy is also
reflected in the Avestan language in so far as there is a special vocabulary
for the good, Ahuric beings on the one hand, and for the evil, Daēvic ones,
on the other. Further support for this interpretation may be found in the
next stanza, which states that the Life-Giving Force produces life, but the
Evil one its negation, non-life, i.e., death:
his deceitful nature. The view that both the life-giving and the destructive force
come from Ahura Mazdā is adopted by Smith 1990: 202. Similarly, according to
Kellens, who interprets Good and Evil in terms of two series of cosmic events,
Ahura Mazdā is the origin of both: ‘Il a, à l’aube des temps, séparé les deux filières
et il est le souverain de la bonne’ (Kellens 1991: 53 [= 2000: 77]).
25 Cf. Boyce 1989: 196, n. 23 who suggests that Zarathustra here speaks as a poet
using a formula rather than as a theologian. It has been suggested that Deutero-
Isaiah’s claim that Yahweh created ‘weal and woe’ (Isa 45.7) is anti-Zoroastrian
polemic. However, there is no need for such an assumption because the biblical
statement fully agrees with common Jewish belief.
26 Cf. Lommel 1930: 27f. Schaeder (1930: 290) suggests that here Zarathustra used
‘eine absichtlose Metapher für die gemeinsame Uranfänglichkeit der beiden
Geister.’
35
A l mu t Hin t z e
Y 30.4 at̰ cā hiiat̰ tā hǝ̄m mainiiū jasaētəm paōuruuīm dazdē

gaēmcā ajiiāitīmcā yaϑācā aŋhat̰ apǝ̄məm aŋhuš
acištō drəguuatąm at̰ aṣ̌ āunē vahištəm manō
When these two forces first come together, (one of them) creates 27
life and (the other creates) non-life, and that ultimately life will be
very bad for the deceitful ones, but best thought for the truthful one.
By referring not only to their origins but also to what happens, respectively,
to the good and bad ones at the end, this stanza indicates a close link
between creation and eschatology in Zoroastrian thought. 28
According to the Pahlavi texts, Ahura Mazdā created both spiritual and
material life for the purpose of overcoming Evil. The latter has to cling
to material creations in order to be present in the world. Ahura Mazdā’s
beautiful and perfect physical creation was spoilt by the attack of Evil,
which came into the world from outside. In the Gathas, human beings
are required to choose what is good and not to spoil life ‘a second time’
by making the wrong choice and supporting Evil in their lives:
Y 45.1 at̰ frauuaxšiiā nū gūšō.dūm nū sraōtā

yaēcā asnāt̰ yaēcā dūrāt̰ išaϑā
nū īm vīspā ciϑrǝ̄ zī mazdā̊ŋhō.dūm
nōit̰ daibitīm duš.sastiš ahūm mərąš́iiāt̰
akā varanā drəguuā̊ hizuuā āuuərətō
I shall now proclaim, lend your ear now, listen now,
O you who approach from both near and far!
27 Humbach (1959: II, 21) correctly identifies the form dazdē as 3sg.ind.pres.mid. of
dā, ‘to set.’ The two creations of spəṇta- mainiiu- and aŋra- mainiiu- are referred
to in the Younger Avesta; cf. the passages quoted by Humbach 1991: II, 50.
28 On this cf. Shaked 1994a: 5–9, 12f. However, his statements that the eschatological
theme was ‘perhaps more subdued’ in the early Yašts and that ‘eschatology, as well
as cosmogony’ was ‘less prominent’ are at variance with the evidence of Yašt 19
and many other Av. passages.
36
All of you, turn now your attention to this (life), for it is splendid!
May he of evil statements, the deceitful One, who is chosen by one’s
tongue,
not spoil life a second time by bad choice!
In the following verse, the better of the two forces outlines the profound
differences between the two:
Y 45.2 at̰ frauuaxšiiā aŋhǝ̄uš mainiiū paōuruiiē

yaiiā̊ spaniiā̊ ūitī mrauuat̰ yǝ̄m aṇgrəm
nōit̰ nā manā̊ nōit̰ sǝ̄ṇghā nōit̰ xratauuō
naēdā varanā nōit̰ uxδā naēdā š́iiaōϑanā
nōit̰ daēnā̊ nōit̰ uruuąnō haciṇte
I shall proclaim the two forces (which were) at the beginning of life.
The life-giving one of these two will speak to the evil one in the
following way: 29
neither our thoughts go together, nor our pronouncements nor our
minds,
neither our choices nor our words nor our deeds,
29 Kellens and Pirart (1988–91: III, 288 and 1997: 63f., n. 61) rightly point out the
syntactic problem that the verb mrū, ‘to speak,’ usually takes the dative rather
than the accusative of the person spoken to. According to them, in Y 45.2 ‘les
deux mainiiu ne se font pas de déclaration.’ However, both the verb mrū and its
Vedic cognate brū have a variety of syntactic constructions, including that of a
double accusative ‘to call someone something’ (Vd 18.1). That in YAv. times Y 45.2
was interpreted as incorporating a speech clearly emerges from Y 19.5 vahištō
ahurō mazdā̊ ahunəm vairīm frāmraōt̰ … aṇtarəca druuaṇtəm āmrūta aiia aṇtarə.
uxti nōit̰ nā manā̊ etc. (= Y 45.2), ‘the very good Wise Lord uttered the Ahuna
Vairya (prayer) … and rejected the deceitful one with the following rejection:
‘Neither our thoughts etc.’ The instrumental aiia aṇtarə.uxti, ‘with the following
rejection,’ in Y 19.5 takes the same position syntactically as uitī, ‘thus’ in Y 45.2.
The adverb uitī, which remains untranslated by Kellens and Pirart (1988–91: I,
155), indicates that a direct speech follows. Skjærvø (2003a: 419) compares Y 45.2
with RV 7.104.12–13.
37
A l mu t Hin t z e
neither our beliefs nor our souls.
In the next stanza the singer affirms with spiritual authority that what he
proclaims was revealed to him by Ahura Mazdā, and warns his hearers
that rejecting his teachings will lead to a terrible end:
Y 45.3 at̰ frauuaxšiiā aŋhǝ̄uš ahiiā ⁺paōuruuīm

yā mōi vīduuā̊ mazdā̊ vaōcat̰ ahurō
yōi īm vǝ̄ nōit̰ iϑā mąϑrəm varəšəṇtī
yaϑā īm mǝ̄nāicā vaōcacā
aēibiiō aŋhǝ̄uš auuōi aŋhat̰ apǝ̄məm
I shall proclaim this life’s principle
which the knowing one, the Wise Lord, has told me:
Those of you who do not put into practice these lines here
as I shall think and speak them,
to those ʻwoeʼ will be the outcome of life.
2 .3 . In d iv i dua l judg e m e nt
The final threat of this stanza points to what happens after death, when
the soul faces judgement. Human beings were created by Ahura Mazdā to
be his co-workers, friends, helpers and supporters in the struggle against
Evil. In contrast to other parts of the material world, such as animals and
plants, human beings are particularly suited for this task because they are
equipped with the moral and intellectual faculty (Av. xratu-) of being able
to distinguish between good and evil. Thanks to this gift, men and women
have access to the spiritual world. On the latter plane, they can acquire
either Ahura Mazdā’s own characteristics, which include truth (Av. aṣ̌ a-),
good thought (vohu manah) and right-mindedness (ārmaiti), or those
of Evil, such as deceit (druj-), evil mind (aka- manah-) and arrogance
(tarǝ̄maiti-) (cf. Shaked 2005: 196f.).
If people choose rightly and strive to acquire Ahura Mazdā’s spiritual
virtues, they fulfill the purpose for which they were made and become
his friends and co-workers. They thus strengthen both Ahura Mazdā
38
and his cause. However, they do have a free choice, and can decide
to become supporters of Evil. Each person, ‘to a man’ as it is said in Y
30.2, must make up his or her own mind and decide whether or not to
support Ahura Mazdā. Their ‘choice’ (Av. frauuaṣ̌ i-), for which they are
morally responsible, is what leads to the distinction between ‘truthful’ and
‘deceitful’ men and women. Human beings of either sex are good or evil
not by nature but by choice. 30
Indeed, there is more to it than that. Not only do people’s choices bear
on whether or not they contribute towards Ahura Mazdā’s cosmic goal,
the defeat and complete removal of Evil from the material world, but
their own destiny is also shaped by the fundamental decisions which they
take at that stage. For when their physical life is over, their immortal soul
(Av. uruuan-) will be united with the party they chose to join when alive:
those who aligned themselves with Evil will end up in the place where Evil
dwells, while supporters of Ahura Mazdā experience their lord’s presence
in the ‘House of Welcome,’ the garō dəmāna. Thus, after death human
beings will be judged on the stance taken with regard to Ahura Mazdā’s
cosmic plan and the resulting way they led their lives.
When one dies, the immortal soul is separated from the mortal body
and prepares to cross a bridge connecting the material world with the
spiritual. It is there, at the ‘account-keeper’s bridge’ (Av. cinuuatō pərətu-),
or Cinwad Bridge, that individual judgement takes place, on the fourth
morning after death. 31 On arrival, the soul is confronted with its own
30 Zoroastrianism makes no distinction between men and women as moral agents.

In the Avesta, there is evidence that not only humans but also animals have the
ability to choose. For instance, in Y 31.9–10, the cow is offered a choice between
a herdsman and a non-herdsman (see Hintze 2007: 259f.). In the creation myth
of the Bundahišn the bovine soul agrees to be recreated after the assault of Evil
on condition that it receives the protection of a herdsman, i.e., Zarathustra; on
the Pahlavi passage, see Shaked 2001: 580. The basic mutual interdependence of
humans and animals is highlighted in Y 39.1 (see Hintze 2007: 260–67).
31 This is according to the Younger Avesta. There are no statements about the
39
A l mu t Hin t z e
mental outlook or ‘vision’ of life (Av. daēnā-, Pahl. dēn), the beliefs shaped
and cherished by each individual during his or her lifetime, as emerges
from the following passage:
Y 48.4 yǝ̄ dāt̰ manō vahiiō mazdā aš́iiascā
huuō daēnąm š́iiaōϑanācā vacaŋhācā
ahiiā zaōšǝ̄ṇg ̽uštīš varənǝ̄ṇg hacaitē
He who makes his thought better or worse
(correspondingly affects) his belief (daēnā-) by his action and word.
It follows his leanings, likings 32 and choices.
The daēnā- is moulded by each person’s choices and denotes the ‘outlook,’
‘attitude’ or ‘worldview’ indicating whether a person has decided to
support Ahura Mazdā or not. Human beings have their own, personal
daēnā-, the nature of which is believed to be decisive after death when
their souls face judgement at the Cinwad Bridge. It is for the sake of their
daēnā- that people are urged to
Y 53.5 vaēdōdūm daēnābīš ⁺aibiiascā ahūm yǝ̄ vaŋhǝ̄uš manaŋhō

Find the life of good thought by means of your beliefs and for their
own sake! 33
The ‘good daēnā-’ is, of course, the Mazdā-worshipping one. While the
souls of truthful people (who venerate and aid the deity) cross the Cinwad
precise time of the crossing in the Older Avesta, except that it takes place after the
individual’s death. It is only then that the soul becomes aware of what the daēnā
cherished during life looks like; cf. Boyce 1989: 238. On the translation of cinuuatō
pərətu-, see Hintze 2007: 198, n. 5.
32 On the emendation ̽uštīš instead of uštiš of the mss., see Hintze 2007: 59f. and n.
35, where the semantics of daēnā- are also discussed. For further references on
daēnā-, see Hintze 2017b: 55.
33 For a translation of the entire stanza and a discussion of the form ⁺aibiiascā, see
Hintze 2007: 178–80.
40
Bridge easily, those of evildoers tremble when trying to pass over and
topple into the House of Deceit, where Evil dwells:
Y 46.11 xšaϑrāiš yūjǝ̄n karapanō kāuuaiiascā

akāiš š́iiaōϑanāiš ahūm mərəṇgəidiiāi maṣ̌ īm
yǝ̄ṇg xᵛǝ̄ uruuā xᵛaēcā xraōdat̰ daēnā
hiiat̰ aibī.gəməm yaϑrā cinuuatō pərətuš
yauuōi vīspāi drūjō dəmānāi astaiiō
By means of their powers ritualists and rulers have yoked
evil actions to a person in order to damage their life.
Their own soul and their own belief will tremble before them
when they come to the account-keeper’s bridge
(to be) guests in the House of Deceit forever.
On arrival at the ‘House of Deceit,’ the soul of the wicked is met by those
of other deceitful people who approach the newcomer offering foul and
stinking food:
Y 49.11 at̰ dušəxšaϑrǝ̄ṇg duš.š́iiaōϑanǝ̄ṇg dužuuacaŋhō

duždaēnǝ̄ṇg ⁺dužmanaŋhō drəguuatō
akāiš xᵛarəϑāiš paitī uruuąnō paitiieiṇtī
drūjō dəmānē haiϑiiā aŋhən astaiiō
With bad food, the souls come to meet the deceitful ones
of bad rule, bad deed, bad word,
bad belief, bad thought.
They will be fitting guests in the House of Deceit.
There they have to stay until the final Renovation (YAv. frašō.kərəti-) at
the end of time. By contrast, after crossing the bridge easily, the soul of
a ‘truthful’ person joins Ahura Mazdā in the ‘House of Welcome,’ the
garō dəmāna (Y 45.8, 50.4 and 51.15), also known as the ‘House of Good
Thought’ (Y 32.15). In the Younger Avesta, such a soul is portrayed as
reciting one of the Gathas while happily traversing the bridge:
41
A l mu t Hin t z e
Y 71.16 yaϑa vaši aṣ̌ āum

iδa aŋhō aṣ̌ auua
frapāraiiā̊ŋhe uruuānəm
tarō cinuuatō pərətūm
vahištahe aŋhǝ̄uš aṣ̌ auua jasō
uštauuaitīm gāϑąm srāuuaiiō
uštatātəm nimraōmnō
You will be as truthful, O truthful one,
as you wish;
being truthful, you will make your soul cross
over the account-keeper’s bridge
and come to the best life,
reciting the Uštavaitī Gāthā,
calling upon happiness.
In their respective places, all souls await the resurrection of their bodies
and the perfection of the material world at the end of time.
2 .4 . T h e Pe r fe ct or a nd univ e r s a l ju dg e m e nt
In making the right choice of what is good, people are truthful and perform
good thoughts, words and deeds and thus contribute to the defeat of the
Destructive Force. They are identified by the special term saōšiiaṇt-, which
literally means ‘one who will prosper, be strong’ in the sense that this person
will overcome Evil. 34 The principle is: the more Saōšyants, the better. In
34 The basic meaning of the root sū (= Ved. śū) is ‘to swell’ (see Mayrhofer 1992–2001:
II, 623f.; Rix et al. 2001: 339f.; Hintze 2017b: 70 with references). In Kellens’s view,
saōšiiaṇt- refers to a person who participates in a correct ritual and, as a result,
‘prospers’ in Ahura Mazdā’s paradise and thus rises from the dead as a hero at the
end of time (Kellens 1998: 755). Kellens criticizes the translation of saōšiiaṇt- as
‘saviour’ or ‘Überwinder,’ but does acknowledge the difficulty of rendering this
and other Avestan technical terms. In the present article, saōšiiaṇt- is translated
‘perfector’ in the sense that he contributes to the defeat and removal of Evil from
42
the Younger Avesta, there is, in addition, the single figure of a ‘victorious
Saōšyant,’ presented as a posthumous son of Zarathustra. His name is
Astuuat̰ .ərəta, and he will victoriously complete the struggle against Evil
in general, and death in particular, by resurrecting the dead and reuniting
them with their respective souls. 35 Between the forces of Good and Evil
there will be a great final battle, in which the latter is completely defeated
and the Evil Spirit, Angra Mainyu, is rendered powerless. The most explicit
text on this theme of universal eschatology is found in one of the older
hymns of the Younger Avesta, the Zamyād Yašt, a text which reached the
poetic form in which it has survived to the present day in the oral tradition
of south-eastern Iran, presumably in the early first millennium BCE: 36
Yt 19.89 (We worship Fortune), which will accompany

the Victorious one among the perfectors
and also his other companions,
so that he will make life excellent,
ageless, without decay,
neither rotting, nor putrefying,
living forever, thriving forever, ruling at will.
the material world, an effort which is brought to completion by the ‘victorious’

saōšiiaṇt-.
35 The name Astuuat̰ .ərəta, ‘he who embodies truth,’ is coined on the basis of the
Gathic expression Y 43.16 ‘truth may be corporeal’ (astuuat̰ aṣ̌ əm x́iiāt̰ ), and
the figure Astuuat̰ .ərəta appears to be the product of post-Gathic theological
speculation. This is suggested by the artificial nature of the names not only
of Astuuat̰ .ərəta but also of his mother, Vīspa.tauruuairī, ‘she who overcomes
everything.’ In later Avestan texts, the figure of the single world redeemer is
triplicated, and the three appear at regular intervals. The final, victorious, one is
then the Saōshyant par excellence (see Hintze 1995). Kellens (1998: 758) suggests
that Mazdayasnian concepts of universal eschatology could have developed since
the second half of the second millennium BCE.
36 For editions of this hymn, see Pirart 1992; Hintze 1994; Humbach and Ichaporia
1998.
43
A l mu t Hin t z e
When the dead rise,

then will come the one without decay, reviving (the dead)
(and) life will create excellent things according to its own will.
Yt 19.90 The (material) world of Truth will be incorruptible

from generation to generation.
Deceit will be banished to the place
whence it had come
to destroy the truthful,
himself, his family and existence.
The (female) villain will be terrified
and the lawless (male) villain will disappear.
Yt 19.92 When Astvatereta emerges

from Lake Kąsaōya,
the messenger of the Wise Lord,
the son of Vispa.taurvairī,
brandishing the victorious weapon
which brave Thraētaōna bore
when the Dragon Dahāka was slain,
Yt 19.93 which Frangrasyan the Turanian bore

when deceitful Zainigau was slain,
which Prince Haōsravah bore
when the Turanian Frangrasyan was slain,
which Prince Višhtaspa bore
when defeating the armies of the enemies of Truth:
There, with this (weapon) he (= Astvatereta) will drive Deceit
from the world of Truth.
Yt 19.94 He will gaze with perceptive eyes.

He will look at all creatures.
belonging to he of evil origin, then attack.
He will gaze at all corporeal life
44
with eyes that convey strength,

and his gaze will render
the entire corporeal world incorruptible.
Yt 19.95 Advancing are the companions

of Victorious Astvatereta,
whose thoughts are good, whose words are good,
whose deeds are good, whose belief is good;
and their own tongues
have never once spoken anything wrong. 37
And before them will flee
Rage of bloody club, of evil fortune.
By Truth he (Astvatereta) will overcome evil Deceit,
(which is) of evil origin (and) consists of darkness.
Yt 19.96 Evil Thought is overcome,

Good Thought overcomes it.
The Word spoken wrongly is overcome,
the Word spoken rightly overcomes it.
Wholeness and Immortality will overcome
both Hunger and Thirst.
Wholeness and Immortality will overcome
evil Hunger and Thirst.
The worker of evil deeds,
the Destructive Force (Angra Mainyu) will retreat, powerless.
The Destructive Force will thus finally be banished from Ahura Mazdā’s
creation. According to the Pahlavi texts he will escape through the very
hole which he had pierced into the stone sky when he initially attacked
the world. There will be a second, universal judgement in which all
37 Skjærvø (1997b) has retrieved the perfect participle vaōcuuah- of the verb vac ‘to
speak’ by restoring the compound ⁺miϑō.vaōxᵛā̊ŋhō, ‘who have spoken wrongly,’
in Yt 19.95; cf. Hintze 2017b: 21.
45
A l mu t Hin t z e
resurrected bodies are first purified from Evil in the ordeal of molten metal 38
and finally united with their respective souls. From then on, the whole
of creation, both body and spirit, will exist in perfection, as originally
intended by its maker.
3. T he Z or o a s t r ia n w or ld v ie w
a s a s o u r ce o f influ e n ce
It should have become clear from this account that creation and perfection
are closely intertwined concepts in Zoroastrian teachings. Eschatological
events are not isolated but form an integral part of cosmology. They result
from the specifically Zoroastrian solution to the problem of Evil. The aim
of Ahura Mazdā’s creation, the removal of Evil, is realized eschatologically.
Furthermore, as was shown by Shaul Shaked on the basis of the Pahlavi
texts, the concept of two creations, one spiritual and the other material,
is responsible for the duplication of judgements, one individual and
the other universal: the immortal soul, which is the spiritual part of the
human being, is judged immediately after death, while the mortal body,
the physical part, is tried at the end of time after its resurrection (Shaked
1971). Thus, Zoroastrian cosmology includes eschatology as an integral
and essential part. It is a neat and close-knit thought system. Each element
has its precisely allocated function within a coherent framework.
Since the time Zoroastrianism spread throughout Iran, these core
teachings must have been present in the minds of Zoroastrians of any
subsequent period. They constitute, in Shaul Shaked’s words, the ‘religious
personality’ of Zoroastrianism that remained constant despite any
modifications. 39 From the earliest times of the religion up to the present
day Zoroastrians have been noted for their commitment to truth as well as
to good thoughts, words and deeds. The latter are performed for the dual
38 Cf. Shaked 1994a: 9 and n. 10.

39 Shaked (1994a: 7–8) uses the expression with regard to Judaism.
46
purpose of reducing the presence of evil in the world and of creating a store
of good deeds for the benefit of each person at their soul’s judgement after
death. As a reminder of this daily struggle, Zoroastrians wear a special shirt
and girdle, the Sudre and Kusti, a practice already attested in the Avesta. 40
Assuming that Zoroastrianism was widespread and established
amongst Iranian-speaking peoples at the beginning of the Achaemenid
period, Jews encountering Zoroastrians would quickly have noticed their
peculiar worldview, which underpins their distinctive ritual practices and
religious observances in daily life. For the dissemination of Zoroastrian
ideas, there would have been no need either for a ‘Persian propagandist,’
as claimed by Morton Smith (Smith 1963: 417–20; idem 1990: 200), 41 or
for special study of Zoroastrian teachings by the Jews, as postulated by
James Barr, who finds ʻstriking indifference … of the Old Testament to
the religion of Iranʼ (Barr 1985: 209). Instead of influence ʻfrom above,ʼ as
postulated—and then rejected—by Smith and Barr, I would like to suggest
that the processes involved happened in daily life through contact and
exchange. The teleological and eschatological worldview of Zoroastrians
would have filtered through to anyone speaking to them in daily discourse.
A lingua franca was available—Aramaic. 42 The concept of ‘intertextuality,’
40 See Boyce 1989: 257–58.

41 Smith admits only an ‘original instance of influence’ on Deutero-Isaiah ― as a result
of Persian political propaganda (Smith 1990: 201). If correct, the latter would be
responsible for the biblical author’s presentation of Cyrus as Yahwe’s anointed
and use of cosmological material in Isaiah chapters 40–48. The assumption of
such ‘Persian political propaganda,’ however, is entirely hypothetical. Sherwin
rejects claims not only of a ‘Zoroastrian propagandist’ working in Babylon prior
to 539 but also of any Zoroastrian influence on Jewish beliefs (Sherwin 2007).
Most Biblical scholars assume that Deutero-Isaiah dates from the exilic period
(550–539 BCE) or from the Persian period (538–332 BCE); see Kwon 2016: 30
and n. 89 (references).
42 Panaino, who provides an insightful discussion of the connections between
Zoroastrianism and post-exilic Judaism, comments on the notion of ‘influence’:
‘rather than deciding between interreligious impact or isolated development
47
A l mu t Hin t z e
which was introduced by Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s into literary
studies and which in recent decades has been widely explored in Biblical
Studies, could here be employed to describe the cultural and dialogic
interaction between members of the religious communities of the Israelites
and the Zoroastrians provided that room is given to the assumption that
the exchange of ideas happened through the spoken rather than the
written word. The Zoroastrian religious tradition being intrinsically oral,
the Avestan texts were memorized and learned by rote from childhood
on and recited on a daily basis by both priests and laypeople in different
settings and on numerous occasions. Their ritual and religious practices
in turn exemplify the eschatological worldview, described above in section
2. Zoroastrians would have communicated their worldview orally in
encounters and in social-cultural contexts shared with the Israelites and, in
Mikhail Bakhtin’s words, in a ‘tension-filled environment.’ 43 Vice versa, the
Zoroastrians would have found out about the worldview of the Israelites.
In view of the orality of the Zoroastrian tradition, another useful
concept in describing the exchange of ideas between different cultures is
the notion of the ‘meme.’ The term was coined by Richard Dawkins in his
book The Selfish Gene, first published in 1976. In Dawkins’s definition,
a meme or a meme complex is a unit of cultural transmission or of
imitation, such as ‘tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of
making pots or of building arches.’ 44 For instance, the meme of Darwin’s
within a religious structure, we should consider a kind of evolution of ideas

within a particular community’s consciousness which also takes up, or at least
is stimulated by, compatible elements from other communities which are both
physically and in consciousness in close proximity’ (Panaino 2004b: 220f ).
43 Bakhtin 1981: 279, quoted by Kwon 2016: 31, who provides a good summary of the
theory of intertextuality (idem: 30–33). Silverman (2012: 129) rightly emphasizes
the role of orality in the communicative contexts of the Judaeans and Zoroastrians.
44 Dawkins goes on: ‘Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping
from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme
pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be
48
theory of evolution is ‘that essential basis of the idea which is held in

common by all brains that understand the theory while the differences
in the ways that people represent the theory are not part of the meme’
(Dawkins 1989: 196). In a study of para-Zoroastrian religious movements,
Stausberg applies the notion of the ‘meme’ to Zoroastrianism. For instance,
with regard to Western Zoroastrian Pseudepigrapha, he points out that
from the Achaemenid period onwards Zoroastrian memes are attested
in the Eastern Mediterranean as a result of the presence of Zoroastrians
there, and have an impact on the changing religious landscape of the area,
especially during the Hellenistic period when Greek became the lingua
franca (Stausberg 2007: 238f.).
Memes spread by replication within a cultural continuum and this
happens both vertically from generation to generation and horizontally
between individuals. While the vertical transmission of memes usually
takes place within an ethnic group and is at least partly deliberate, on the
horizontal level the spread of memes is not restricted by ethnic or cultural
boundaries but is able to cross them and mostly escapes conscious control.
The influence exerted by one religion on another could thus be explained
in terms of the inter-cultural horizontal spreading of memes from one
member’s brain to another from a different ethnic group. A meme that has
spread into a different culture subsequently becomes part of a new meme
pool and may adapt and change in the new environment.
With regard to Zoroastrian cosmology and eschatology, concepts such
as ‘judgement after death,’ ‘heaven and hell,’ the perception of death and
decay as products of an enemy (Evil) that is external to God and is to be
opposed, could be considered to be ‘memes’ or ‘meme complexes.’ They
called imitation’ (Dawkins 1989: 192). He coined the term meme by abbreviating
an Ancient Greek word which he quotes as mimeme (i.e., presumably, Greek
μίμημα, ‘anything imitated, counterfeit, copy’) in order to obtain a monosyllabic
word analogous to the word ‘gene.’ On p. 322, he comments that the word ‘meme’
is itself a meme.
49
A l mu t Hin t z e
belong to a set of core concepts of a particular worldview, a memetic

structure that is passed on from generation to generation within a cultural
continuum. When looking for traces of contacts between different religions,
it is not sufficient to describe parallel isolated concepts, such as creation,
resurrection, or the restoration of a perfect state of existence. Such ideas
may be found in different and entirely unconnected cultures, although
they may also have replicated as memes across cultural boundaries. Rather,
Zoroastrian influence can be argued for more powerfully if we are able
to detect traces of a coherent set of ideas, a meme complex. Such would
be the case, for instance, if there were a connection between creation
and eschatology, or two judgements, individual and universal, or if the
resurrection of the body were conceptually linked to the defeat of evil,
i.e., if the dead rise because evil has been defeated. What would suggest
Zoroastrian influence here is not so much the occurrence of individual
parallel ideas in two different traditions, but the causal link of a sequence of
events. Such a connection would indicate a shared underlying worldview,
one in which death is perceived and interpreted not as a natural fact but
as a product of Evil requiring to be removed. This is, as we have seen, a
genuine Zoroastrian idea originating from an equally unique Zoroastrian
concept of Evil as a power external to God.
4 . E s ch at ol o g y in J u d ais m
In pre-exilic Judaism, eschatological ideas are closely tied up with Israelite
history. 45 Although there is the expectation of a new era, different from the
present one, there is no coherent concept of either individual or universal
eschatology transcending earthly life. Ancient Israelite eschatology is
entirely this-worldly, and it is therefore questionable whether it should
45 Hartman refers to this as eschatology ‘in the broad sense of a dramatic change
from one historical period to an entirely different one in the future’ (Hartman
1971–72: 864).
50
be called ‘eschatology’ at all. There is nothing worthwhile to be expected

after death, when all mortals, the good and the bad alike, go down to
Sheol, the netherworld, to an ethereal, shadowy, unenviable existence, 46
as described in Job 7:7–10:
7. Remember that my life is a breath;

my eye will never again see good …
9. As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so those who go down to Sheol do not come up;
10. they return no more to their houses,
nor do their places know them anymore. 47
Yahweh’s ability to put to death and make alive, praised in Hannah’s song,
cannot be said to form part of an underlying eschatology. Rather it belongs
to the idea that Yahweh, being all-powerful, is lord over everything,
including life and death:
1 Sam 2:6 The Lord kills and brings to life;

he brings down to Sheol and raises up. 48
Yahweh’s lordship encompasses both heaven and earth. He can even

preserve his faithful from Sheol (Ps 16:10; Ivry 1971–72: 174). In poetry,
46 Num 16:33; Ps 6:6; Isa 38:18, see Roth et al. 1971–72: 337; Boyce 1984: 300f.
Johnston (2002) is a useful study of the concept of Sheol in the Hebrew Bible. He
argues that death and the hereafter are of little concern in the Hebrew Bible, where
instead the focus is on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people in
this life (see Johnston 2002: 18, 69f., 199–217).
47 Unless indicated otherwise, biblical passages are quoted from The Holy Bible
containing The Old and New Testaments with The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
Books. New Revised Standard Version (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989).
48 The text continues in 1 Sam 2:7: ‘The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings
low, he also exalts.’ Similarly Deut 32:39: ‘See now that I, even I, am he; there is
no god beside me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can
deliver from my hand.’ On these passages, see Johnston 2002: 218–20, who notes
that ‘[i]‌t is simply a corollary of Yahweh’s greatness that he can ‘make alive.’
51
A l mu t Hin t z e
severe misery, mortal sickness and dire peril are viewed as death-like
states, in which the victim has descended into Sheol. Yahweh allows people
to experience such circumstances, but he also rescues them from them.
The act by which individuals are brought back into this life is referred to
as ‘restoring to life,’ ‘redemption from the pit’ and ‘restoration of youth’
(Greenberg 1971–72: 97). However, they are returned to this earthly life,
not to another type of life beyond the present one.
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE has
been rightly called the ʻclimactic turning pointʼ in both the political and
religious history of ancient Israel (Hartman 1971–72: 867). It is during
and after the Babylonian Exile that the most important developments in
Israelite eschatological thinking take place. This period coincides with
the occurrence of historical contacts between Israelites and Persians.
The pre-exilic historical eschatology acquires two new components:
one transcendent and other-worldly, the other cosmic and universal. It
is with Deutero-Isaiah that a more transcendent concept of eschatology
is first attested. He prophesies that Yahweh would use the king of Persia,
Cyrus, as his ‘anointed,’ māšiaḥ, to liberate the deported people of Judah
from captivity, restore the temple treasures seized by the Babylonians and
allow them to return and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This predicted
deliverance and restoration of Israel is presented by Deutero-Isaiah not
only as introducing a new historical era for Israel but also as manifesting
God’s extraordinary intervention in human history, transforming the
world on a cosmic scale. The restoration of Judah is seen as a ‘new creation’
for the benefit not only of the Israelites but of all mankind. 49
In Deutero-Isaiah there occurs for the first time an emphasis on the idea
of Yahweh as the creator of the world. While the theme of the world as a
divine creation also occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and in many
other traditions, the important point here is that it is formulated in a way
similar to the cosmological part of one of Zarathustra’s Gathas, Yasna 44,
49 Isa 41:17–20; 42:5–7; 43:1; 45:8; see Hartman 1971–72: 869.
52
quoted above. 50 This was observed by Morton Smith in a much noted

article (Smith 1963). An additional parallel, not noticed by Smith, is the
link between creation and eschatology. Yahweh is presented both as the
almighty creator and as the one who will restore Israel as a new creation.
Such is the case, for instance, in Isaiah chapter 42. After verses about the
Lord’s chosen one who is envisaged as establishing justice on the earth
(Isa 42:1–4), the text continues with the so-called third ‘Song of Cyrus’
(Isa 42:5–9): 51
Isa 42:5 Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and
stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from
it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who
walk in it:
42:6 I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken
you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the
people, a light to the nations,
42:7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from
the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. 52
42:8 I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor
my praise to idols.
42:9 See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now
declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them.
50 See pp. 29–32.

51 See Elliger 1978: 230, according to whom Isa 41:1–4 is the first Song of Cyrus,
41:21–29 the second and 42:5–9 the third.
52 Isa 42:6–7 has a close parallel in the Cyrus Cylinder (Pritchard 1969: 315f.);
see Barker 2003: 528. The similarities between the Cyrus Cylinder and Second
Isaiah were first noticed by Kittel, according to whom both were influenced by the
‘Babylonian court style’ (Kittel 1898). By contrast, Smith argues that the common
material is the result of ‘propaganda put out in Babylonia by Cyrus’ agents, shortly
before Cyrus’ conquest, to prepare the way of their lord’ (Smith 1963: 417); see
on this above, n. 41.
53
A l mu t Hin t z e
4 .1 . S h i f t f r om c o l l e ct iv e to i nd iv i d ua l r e s po n si b i l it y
A significant development in Israelite eschatological thinking is the
change of emphasis from collective to individual responsibility. In pre-
exilic Judaism, judgement is seen as an event of collective retribution.
It is the whole group, i.e., family, tribe or nation, that is responsible for
the actions of its members. Deutero-Isaiah’s immediate predecessor, the
prophet Ezekiel, shifts the focus of divine retribution from the group
to the individual. 53 Since he devotes an entire chapter to the concept of
individual retribution, explains its meaning with examples and explicitly
argues against a view commonly held by the Israelites (Ezek 18:2 and 19),
he gives the impression of wishing to familiarize them with a new idea:
Ezek 18:20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer
for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a
child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.
Ezek 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you
according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all
your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin.
4 .2 . R e sur r e ct i o n
Although there is evidence in the Hebrew Bible that individual
responsibility moves to the foreground, the assumption has been rightly
challenged that the concept of resurrection of the dead springs from that
of retribution after death. 54 In Ezekiel’s ‘vision of the dry bones’ (Ezek
53 Cf. von Rad 1957–60: I, 390–92; ibid.: II, 245f.; Zimmerli 1951: 257. Other
scholars, however, argue that there is no such shift in Ezek 18. For instance,
according to Joyce, the chapter asserts moral independence of generations rather
than individuals (see Joyce 1979 and 1986).
54 For instance, according to Hartman, divine justice would ensure that both the
righteous and the wicked receive their just deserts and, as a corollary, ideas of life
54
37:1–14), resurrection of the dead is usually interpreted as a metaphor

for Israel’s national restoration. 55 However, the mere fact that Ezekiel
uses resurrection as an image at all is remarkable and novel, as this is
the earliest occurrence of that concept in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, two
new eschatological ideas which are also known in Zoroastrianism are
first introduced in Ezekiel and then further developed in post-Biblical
literature: individual responsibility and judgement, on the one hand, and,
even if only as a figure of speech, resurrection of the dead, on the other. 56
The earliest attestations of resurrection from the dead in a literal
sense date from the anonymous prophetic collection known as the
after death and resurrection gained prominence (see Hartman 1971–72: 874f.).
By contrast, May objects against a correlation between the developing concern for
the individual, on the one hand, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,
on the other (see May 1961: 110; cf. Hasel 1980: 283 with references). Hasel lists
the passages in the Hebrew Bible referring to resurrection (ibid.: 267, n. 2).
55 See, for instance, Johnston 2002: 222–24.
56 Cf. Baltzer 1971: 118: ‘Es ist hier mit der Bemerkung zu schließen, daß eine
überzeugende Herleitung des Vorstellungsmaterials der Vision Ez 37.1–10
nicht gelingen will. Angesichts der ursprünglichen Aussagekraft dieses für die
Exilsprophetie wegweisenden Berichts von Ezechiels Vision könnte dieser Mangel
vielleicht ein Hinweis auf des Propheten originale Gestaltungskraft sein.’ Lang
concludes that there was Zoroastrian influence on Ezekiel (see Lang 1986: 307–16;
idem 1988: 19). According to him, the ‘Iranian connection enabled Ezekiel to
transcend the limits of Jewish belief current in his day. It may well be that Ezekiel
was among the first Jewish theologians for whom the Zoroastrian connection
became decisive in redefining Jewish belief. Monotheism, the doctrine of creation,
the emphasis on ritual purity, and eventually the whole apocalyptic drama were
developed or reshaped after the Jewish encounter with a religion with which
it already had much in common’ (Lang 1986: 313). Lang’s views, however, are
criticized by Johnston (2002: 234f.). Silverman concludes that several details in
Ezekiel’s vision agree with Iranian rites and beliefs attested from the Persian period
(Silverman 2012: 130–35).
55
A l mu t Hin t z e
‘Isaiah Apocalypse’ (Isa 24–27), where it is presented as the means of re-

establishing Israel: 57
Isa 26:19 Your dead shall live, their bodies shall rise.
The dwellers of the dust shall awake and sing for joy,
For your dew is a dew of lights,
And the earth shall give birth to the shades. 58
Here the significant point for our purposes is that the idea of resurrection
does not occur in isolation but is combined with three other eschatological
concepts. The first is that of judgement and occurs in the two verses
immediately following those on resurrection:
Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,

and shut your doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while until the wrath is past.
21. For the Lord comes out from his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,
and will no longer cover its slain.
The second eschatological concept combined with resurrection is that of

the defeat of the sea monster Leviathan in the next verse, Isa 27:1:
57 Here, as well as in Dan 12:1–2, it refers to resurrection in the literal sense, as

distinct from the symbolic resurrection of the dead in Ezekiel; see Hasel 1980: 268
with notes 4–7 (references) and 273–75. Most scholars agree that the Apocalypse
of Isaiah is earlier than the apocalyptic section in Daniel (Dan 7:1–12.13). The
latter is generally assigned to the period of the Maccabean revolt in 167–164
BCE; see Hartman 1971–72: 870, and Johnston 2002: 226f. There is, however, no
consensus on the dating of the Isaiah Apocalypse. Some scholars assign it to the
second century BCE, while others advocate a sixth- or even eighth- century BCE
date (see Hasel 1980: 268f.; Lang 1986: 313 with n. 59). According to Sweeney,
the vineyard song (Isa 27: 2–6) of the Isaiah Apocalypse is definitely post-exilic
(Sweeney 1987: 66 [= 2014: 93]).
58 Translation by Hasel 1980: 271.
56
On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will
punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent,
and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. 59
Since this verse immediately follows those on resurrection and judgement,

the context suggests that the ancient Babylonian myth of the deity slaying
the serpent is here used as an image for Yahweh overcoming the powers of
death and destruction. 60 The defeat of the latter is followed by a vineyard
song describing a life of harmony between Yahweh and his chosen people:
Isa 27:2 On that day:

A pleasant vineyard, sing about it!
3. I, the Lord, am its keeper;
every moment I water it.
I guard it night and day
so that no one can harm it …
6. In days to come Jacob shall take root,
Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots,
and fill the whole world with fruit.
The beginning of a new era of happiness is the third eschatological

element combined here with resurrection. 61 The same four components—
resurrection, defeat of a serpent or dragon representing destructive
powers, judgement and the beginning of a new blissful era—are also found
in Zoroastrian eschatology. In the latter the ancient Indo-European myth
59 On this passage, see Heidel 1951: 103, where tannīn is translated as ‘crocodile.’
60 According to Eissfeldt, Leviathan and Tannin represent the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
Empires (Eissfeldt 1976: 439).
61 Examining the vineyard song of Isa 27:2–6 in relation to the vineyard song of
Prōto-Isaiah (Isa 5:1–7), Sweeney concludes that the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isa
24–27) in general and the vineyard song in particular display a conceptual unity
which results from post-exilic theological reflection on pre-exilic Isianic tradition
(Sweeney 1987: 66 [= 2014: 93]).
57
A l mu t Hin t z e
of the hero slaying a dragon, or serpent, is re-interpreted as a metaphor

for the defeat of Evil. 62 The defeat of the latter, or death, is a sine qua non
for resurrection to take place. As we have seen in Yt 19.92–93, before
resurrecting the dead, the Iranian ‘perfector,’ the victorious Saōshyant
Astvatereta, slays Deceit, representing Evil, with the same weapon with
which earlier the hero Thraētaōna slew the dragon Dahāka. This victory
is followed by the resurrection of the dead and the beginning of a new era
of eternal bliss.
A dragon also plays an important role in the Apocalypse of John
(Rev 20:2). Here, too, Evil, or Satan, is embodied by such a creature.
The ‘ancient serpent,’ ὁ ὄϕις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, is fettered before being let loose
‘for a little while,’ only to be defeated in the great final battle. 63 As in
Zoroastrianism and the Isaiah Apocalypse, Evil’s defeat is followed by
resurrection, judgement (Rev 20:12–15) and a new heaven and a new
earth free from pain, suffering and death (Rev 21:1–4). The significant
feature of these Zoroastrian, Israelite and Christian eschatological myths
is that they all involve a combination of the same four constituents: defeat
of Evil, resurrection, judgement, and the commencement of a blissful era.
In each of the three traditions a causal link is established between the
defeat of Evil embodied by a dragon or serpent and equalling destruction
and death, on the one hand, and resurrection, on the other. The shared
sequence of events are summarized in the following table:
Shared Components of the Eschatological Myth

Zoroastrian Israelite Christian
Arrival of Redeemer Yt 19.89–92 Isa 27:1 (Yahweh) Rev 20:1 (angel)
(Astvatereta)
Resurrection Yt 19.89, 94 Isa 26:19 Rev 20:4, 13
Judgement Yt 19.94 Isa 26:20–21 Rev 20:4, 11–12, 15
62 On the Indo-European myth, see Watkins 1995.

63 See Hintze 1999: 80–84.
58
Zoroastrian Israelite Christian

Defeat of dragon, battle Yt 19.92–93, 95–96 Isa 27:1 Rev 20:2–3, 7–10, 14
New life in bliss Yt 19.96 Isa 27:2–6 Rev 21
The perception of death as both an enemy and a product of Evil is a novel

Zoroastrian idea. It results from the Zoroastrian singular concept of Evil
as an external force requiring to be removed from this world. This is not
so in pre-exilic Judaism, where death is accepted as a natural fact of life. In
the Isaiah Apocalypse, however, death is, as in Zoroastrianism, an enemy
to be defeated. This is explicitly stated in Isa 25:7: Yahweh ‘will swallow
up death forever,’ and later by Paul in 1 Cor 15:26: ‘The last enemy to be
destroyed is death,’ ἔσχατoς ἐχϑρòς καταργεῖται ὁ ϑάνατος. Death is now
seen as the ultimate, ‘eschatological’ adversary, the ἔσχατoς ἐχϑρός, that
has to be defeated. As a result of this victory, the dead will rise, and this is
why in Zoroastrianism the final ‘perfector’ (saōšiiaṇt-) Astvatereta bears
the epithet ‘victorious.’ Although Zoroastrianism, on the one hand, and
Judaism, on the other, offer differing explanations for the presence of death
in the world, 64 it is highly unlikely that its perception as an enemy to be
defeated evolved in Judaism without some Zoroastrian input.
4 .3 . He av e n a nd Hel l
National and historical components are present in the Apocalypse of Isaiah
in so far as the people of Israel are resurrected as a nation and Yahweh’s
judgement entails punishing their enemies. Such features are not found
in the famous passage in Dan 12:2:
And many of those who sleep in the ground of dust shall awake, some
to everlasting life, but others to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence. 65
64 While in Zoroastrianism death is perceived as a product of Evil, in Judaism and

Christianity it results from Adam and Eve’s original sin and the subsequent loss
of paradise, as recounted in Genesis 3; cf. on the latter Johnston 2002: 40f.
65 Translation by Hasel 1980: 276.
59
A l mu t Hin t z e
While Isaiah 26 is about the resurrection of Israel as a nation, the Daniel

passage exhibits an ethical dimension that goes beyond the Israelite
national perspective: both good and evil persons are resurrected to face
judgement and receive reward and retribution respectively. 66 The good
ones are described in the next verse:
Dan 12:3 Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the
sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever
and ever.
This concept of reward and retribution after death requires different places
to which the righteous and wicked are sent. The ancient Israelite concept
of Sheol, the dark netherworld abode of all the dead, good and evil alike,
changes gradually into a place of retribution for the evildoers even before
their resurrection. In order to create different regions for the good and the
bad, Sheol is now divided into different layers. Evildoers are allocated to
the lower levels to be tormented according to the gravity and amount of
evil deeds performed throughout their lifetime. The righteous, by contrast,
stay in the upper half where they enjoy bliss.
A further development is that the places for reward and retribution
are entirely separate: in Rabbinic Judaism the biblical Sheol is replaced
by Gehenna, 67 the abominable pit where the wicked are tormented. Along
66 Hasel discusses various interpretations put forward for Dan 12:2 (Hasel 1980:
276–81) and concludes that Dan 12:2 ‘speaks of a resurrection that has broader
contours’ than the one in Isa 26:19 (ibid.: 279) and that ‘the larger apocalyptic
context of the Daniel pericope points in the direction of a resurrection to
everlasting life that is neither restricted to Israelites nor does it include all Israelites’
(ibid.: 280). According to Hasel, the ‘tantalizing brevity of Dan. 12:1–4 suggests
that the resurrection idea was not a novel one. […] But the idea of a resurrection
of righteous and wicked is new’ (ibid.: 281).
67 Aramaic Gehinnom is derived from Gei Ben Hinnom, ‘valley of the son of Hinnom.’
The semantic development of the Hebrew and Aramaic expression ge hinnom can
be traced through the different strata of texts. In the Hebrew Bible, in particular
Jer 7:32–33, ‘the valley of the son of Hinnom’ denotes a detestable place filled
60
with the concept of ‘hell,’ that of ‘paradise’ evolved into the place of reward
for the righteous. The righteous proceed to the Garden of Eden, translated
in the Septuagint by the Persian loan-word παράδεισος, ‘paradise.’ 68
5 . Z or o a s t r ia n a n d Is r a e li t e e s ch at ol o g y
I hope the extent to which eschatology forms an integral part of Zoroastrian
cosmology has become clear in this essay. The system is fully developed in
our earliest texts, the Avesta, but takes shape only very gradually in exilic
and post-exilic Judaism, and not until the Israelites have made contact with
the Persians. Although there are pre-exilic messianic texts, in particular
Isaiah 2:2–4 and 11:1–9, where God’s judgement over everyone and a new
era of peace are described, I have argued that in Judaism eschatology evolves
along lines that tend to converge with ideas known from Zoroastrianism.
Most importantly, these are not parallel though isolated ideas, but sets
of interconnected and coherent concepts. They include Deutero-Isaiah’s
emphasis on Yahweh not only as creator but also as perfector of the world.
Moreover, although the Isaiah Apocalypse is set in an Israelite national
framework, the combination of resurrection, defeat of destructive powers,
with corpses. In Trito-Isaiah (Isa 66:24), it is a place of retribution for the wicked,
whose dead bodies are forever tormented by worms and fire. The final stage of
semantic development is reached in the post-biblical Jewish literature of the
Second Temple period (e.g., 4 Ezra 7:36; 1 Enoch 27:2; 48:9; 54:1; 90:26–27;
103:8; Ass. Mos. 10:19; 2 Bar. 85:12–13), in which Gehenna no longer denotes
a particular valley but has become a technical term for the concept of ‘hell’ as a
place of retribution and punishment for the wicked; see Kedar 1971–72: 997;
Hartman 1971–72: 875f.
68 Isaiah and Ezekiel compare the land restored by the Lord and in which the god-
loving people of Israel will live to the Garden of Eden (Isa 11:6–9; 51:3; Ezek
36:35). In the later literature, the Garden of Eden is the place where the righteous
go after death (4 Ezra 4:7; 7:36, 123; 8:52; 2 Enoch 42:3; 65:10), while God’s abode
is above in ‘heaven’; see Hartman 1971–72: 876. Hultgård discusses the semantic
development of the term ‘paradise’ (see Hultgård 2000).
61
A l mu t Hin t z e
judgement and the beginning of a new era constitutes a sequence of events

for which there is a Zoroastrian model in the Avestan Zamyād Yašt. The
first occurrence of individual, as distinct from collective, responsibility is
arguably in Ezekiel, while that of judgement after death is found in Daniel.
The gradual development of separate places where reward and retribution
are received after death can also be traced through the texts of Judaism.
As we have seen, Ahura Mazdā’s two creations, the spiritual and the
material, are responsible for the two judgements, the individual and the
universal: the immortal soul is judged immediately after death, but the
mortal body at the end of time following its resurrection. While this
makes sense in Zoroastrianism, it does not do so in Judaism because in
the anthropology of the latter the personality is considered to be a whole.
There is no distinction in biblical and post-biblical Judaism between
body and soul as entities that might exist separately. Although ideas about
the soul entered Judaism in Hellenistic times, the much later rabbis still
emphasize the biblical unity of body and soul. 69 This is probably the reason
why ideas about a judgement of the soul after death did not find much
fertile ground in Judaism, except in Hellenistic contexts. 70 Consequently,
there is no consistency in the sources of Judaism, and of Christianity, as
69 Ivry 1971–72: 172; Urbach 1979: 224. For the integrity of human beings according
to Rabbinic perception, see, e.g., Kimelman 2006, according to whom the rabbinic
worldview affirms the physical as a medium of the spiritual: ‘While others of
dualistic tendencies exalted the soul and denigrated the body, the Rabbis de-
divinized the soul and de-demonized the body. The result enhanced the body-soul
linkage’ (ibid.: 953).
70 In the Septuagint Grk. ψυχή, ‘soul,’ translates the biblical nefesh and from that
time onward Hellenistic philosophical notions of the soul/psyche as distinct from
the body/soma had an impact on Greek Jewish literature in Hellenistic times, but
with the restriction noted by Feldman (1988: 29 [= 1996: 491]): ‘But the word
nefesh may mean “anyone”; and even if it means “soul,” Judaism … spurns the
harsh contrast between body and soul and the notion that the body is evil’; cf.
also Elledge 2013. I am indebted to my colleague Catherine Hezser for providing
the references and quotations in this and the preceding footnote.
62
to the time when people enter either Gehenna or the Garden of Eden, i.e.,
whether immediately after death or only at the resurrection of the body (cf.
Shaked 1971: 87, n. 88). Such inconsistency is revealing and symptomatic.
It suggests that the idea of two judgements did not develop within Judaism
without influence from elsewhere.
One of the problems in the study of cross-cultural connections of the
development of the eschatological ideas discussed here is that, after the
first historical contacts between Israelites and Zoroastrians in the sixth
century BCE, there is a delay of several hundred years before such ideas
surface in larger quantity in the Jewish sources, while they are relatively
rare in the Hebrew Bible. Eschatology becomes the dominant theme, and
Zoroastrian connections undeniable, only from the second century BCE
onwards in post-biblical Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. 71
One reason for this delay may be the intrinsic this-worldliness of the
Jewish faith. The Israelites saw themselves as the chosen people of Yahweh,
who was believed to manifest his faithfulness and overruling power in
Israel’s history. Past experiences, such as the destruction of the Solomonic
Temple and the Babylonian Exile, regulated the extent and intensity with
which the Israelites responded to eschatological ideas. Since Deutero-
Isaiah, they were eagerly anticipating the restoration of their nation in
the promised land under a Davidic king. The longer these expectations
were disappointed and remained unfulfilled, the more their hopes for a
better future were transposed to a new life beyond the grave. The textual
evidence suggests that during this period the Israelites assimilated a type
of eschatology that was first formulated by Zarathustra.
71 See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
63
A l mu t Hin t z e
Bibli o gr a ph y
Ahmadi, Amir. 2013. ʻThe Twins Stanza, Y 30.3.ʼ Iranian Studies 46/2, pp.
227–49.
Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. by
Michael Holquist. Transl. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.
University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1. Austin: U of Texas Press.
Baltzer, Dieter. 1971. Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja. Berührungen in
der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten. Beiheft zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121. Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter.
Barker, Margaret. 2003. ʻIsaiah.ʼ In Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.
Ed. James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids, Michigan/
Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp.
489–542.
Barr, James. 1985. ʻThe Question of Religious Influence: The Case of
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity.ʼ Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 53/2, pp. 201–35.
Boyce, Mary. 1984. ʻPersian Religion in the Achaemenid Age.ʼ In The
Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 1: Introduction; The Persian Period.
Ed. W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
pp. 279–307.
———. 1989. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1: The Early Period.
Reprinted with corrections. Leiden: Brill. [Or. publ. 1975.]
Collins, John J. 1984. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the
Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroads.
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford UP. [Or. publ.
1976.]
Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. 1985. ʻA hriman.ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica 1,
pp. 670–73.
Eissfeldt, Otto. 1976. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Neue theologische
Grundriße. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr.
64
Elledge, C.D. 2013. ʻResurrection and Immortality in Hellenistic Judaism:

Navigating the Conceptual Boundaries.ʼ In Christian Origins and
Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament.
Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden and Boston: Brill,
vol. 2, pp. 101–33.
Elliger, Karl. 1978. Deuterojesaja. I. Teilband: Jesaja 40,1–45,7. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag.
Feldman, Louis H. 1988. ʻTorah and Secular Culture: Challenge and
Response in the Hellenistic Period.ʼ Tradition 23/2, pp. 26–40. [Rept.
in idem Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.
487–503.]
Grabbe, Lester L. 1992. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol. 1: The Persian
and Greek Periods. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Greenberg, Moshe. 1971–72. ʻResurrection. In the Bible.ʼ Encyclopaedia
Judaica 14, pp. 96–98.
Hartman, Louis F. 1971–72. ʻEschatology. In the Bible. In the Intertesta-
mental Literature.ʼ Encyclopaedia Judaica 6, pp. 860–79.
Hasel, Gerhard F. 1980. ʻResurrection in the Theology of Old Testament
Apocalyptic.ʼ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92, pp.
267–84.
Heidel, Alexander. 1951. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation.
2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago Press. [Or. publ. 1941.]
Hinnells, John R. 2000. Zoroastrian and Parsi Studies: Selected Works of
John R. Hinnells. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hintze, Almut, ed. and trans. 1994. Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung,
Kommentar. Beiträge zur Iranistik 15. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 1995. ʻThe Rise of the Saviour in the Avesta.ʼ In Iran und Turfan.
Beiträge Berliner Wissenschaftler, Werner Sundermann zum 60.
Geburtstag gewidmet. Ed. Christiane Reck and Peter Zieme. Iranica
2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 77–97.
———. 1999. ʻThe Saviour and the Dragon in Iranian and Jewish/Christian
Eschatology.ʼ In Irano-Judaica IV. Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts
65
A l mu t Hin t z e
with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages. Ed. Shaul Shaked and
Amnon Netzer. Jerusalem: The Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of
Jewish Communities in the East, pp. 72–90.
———. 2000. ʻZur Überlieferung der ältesten Zeugnisse indoiranischer
Sprachen.ʼ In Europa et Asia Polyglotta—Sprachen und Kulturen:
Festschrift für Robert Schmitt-Brandt zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Yoko
Nishina. Dettelbach: Röll, pp. 67–85.
———. 2004. ʻ“Do ut des”: Patterns of Exchange in Zoroastrianism. A
Memorial Lecture for Ilya Gershevitch. Delivered at the Royal Asiatic
Society on 13 June 2002.ʼ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 14/1, pp.
27–45.
———. 2007. A Zoroastrian Liturgy: The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna
35–41). Iranica 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
———. 2013. ʻChange and Continuity in the Zoroastrian Tradition.ʼ An
Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 22 February 2012 at the School of
Oriental and African Studies, London.
———. 2014a. ʻMonotheism the Zoroastrian Way.ʼ Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (Third Series) 24/2, pp. 225–49.
———. 2014b. ʻAvestan Research 1991–2014. Part 1: Sources and
Phonology.ʼ Kratylos 59, pp. 1–52.
———. 2017a. ʻZoroastrian Afterlife Beliefs and Funerary Practices.ʼ In
The Routledge Companion to Death and Dying. Ed. Christopher M.
Moreman. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 86–97.
———. 2017b. ʻAvestan Research 1991–2017. Part 2: Morphology, Syntax,
Lexicon (nos. 32–79).ʼ Kratylos 62, pp. 1–126.
Hoffmann, Karl, and Bernhard Forssman. 2004. Avestische Laut- und
Flexionslehre. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 84.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. [Or. publ. 1996.]
Hultgård, Anders. 1983. ʻForms and Origins of Iranian Apocalypticism.ʼ
In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism,
66
Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Ed. David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr,

pp. 387–411.
———. 2000. ʻDas Paradies: vom Park des Perserkönigs zum Ort der
Seligen.ʼ In La Cité de Dieu/Die Stadt Gottes. 3. Symposium Strasbourg,
Tübingen, Uppsala 19.-23. September in Tübingen. Ed. Martin Hengel,
Siegfried Mittman, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
pp. 1–43.
Humbach, Helmut. 1959. Die Gathas des Zarathustra. Heidelberg: Winter.
2 vols.
———, ed. and trans. 1991. The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the Other
Old Avestan Texts. In collaboration with Josef Elfenbein and Prods
Oktor Skjærvø. Part I: Introduction—Text and Translation. Part
II: Commentary. Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 1, Lehr- und
Handbücher. Heidelberg: Winter.
———, and Pallan R. Ichaporia, ed. and trans. 1998. Zamyād Yasht. Yasht
19 of the Younger Avesta. Text, Translation, Commentary. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Ivry, Alfred L. 1971–72. ʻSoul.ʼ Encyclopaedia Judaica 15, pp. 171–74.
Johnston, Philip S. 2002. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old
Testament. Leicester: Apollos; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Joyce, Paul M. 1979. ʻIndividual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18?ʼ In Studia
Biblica 1978. I. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Sixth
International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3–7 April 1978.
Ed. E.A. Livingstone. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, pp. 185–96.
———. 1986. ʻEzekiel and Individual Responsibility.ʼ In Ezekiel and his
Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Ed. Johan
Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74.
Leuven: Leuven UP, pp. 317–21.
Kedar, Batya. 1971–72. ʻNetherworld. In the Aggadah.ʼ Encyclopaedia
Judaica 12, pp. 997–98.
67
A l mu t Hin t z e
Kellens, Jean. 1987. ʻCharacters of Ancient Mazdaism.ʼ History and

Anthropology 3, pp. 239–62. [= Kellens 2000, pp. 1–24.]
———. 1991. Zoroastre et l’Avesta ancien: Quatre leçons au Collège de
France. Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de la
Sorbonne nouvelle 14. Paris: Peeters. [= Kellens 2000, pp. 31–94.]
———. 1994. ʻL’eschatologie mazdéenne ancienne.ʼ In Irano-Judaica III.
Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout
the Ages. Ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer. Jerusalem: The Ben-Zvi
Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, pp. 49–53.
———. 1998. ʻDe la naissance des montagnes à la fin du temps: le Yašt 19.
Résumé des cours et travaux de la chaire de langues et religions indo-
iraniennes.ʼ Annuaire du Collège de France 1997–1998, pp. 737–65.
———. 2000. Essays on Zarathushtra and Zoroastrianism. Transl. and ed.
by Prods Oktor Skjærvø. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers.
———. 2006. La quatrième naissance de Zarathushtra. [Paris]: Éditions
du Seuil.
———. 2015. L’exégèse du sacrifice comme principe unitaire de l’Avesta :
Leçon de clôture prononcée le 14 février 2014. Paris: Collège de France.
———, and Éric Pirart. 1988–91. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Wiesbaden:
Reichert. 3 vols.
———. 1997. ʻLa strophe des jumeaux: stagnation, extravagance et autres
méthodes d’approche.ʼ Journal Asiatique 285/1, pp. 31–72.
Kimelman, Reuven. 2006. ʻThe Rabbinic Theology of the Physical:
Blessings, Body and Soul, Resurrection, and Covenant and Election.ʼ
In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic
Period. Ed. Steven T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 946–76.
Kittel, Rudolf. 1898. ʻCyrus und Deuterojesaja.ʼ Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 18, pp. 149–62.
Kwon, JiSeong James. 2016. Scribal Culture and Intertextuality: Literary
and Historical Relationships between Job and Deutero-Isaiah.
Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
68
Lang, Bernhard. 1986. ʻStreet Theater, Raising the Dead, and the
Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.ʼ In Ezekiel and his
Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Ed. Johan
Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74.
Leuven: Leuven UP, pp. 297–316.
———. 1988. ʻAfterlife: Ancient Israel’s Changing Vision of the World
Beyond.ʼ Bible Review 4/1, pp. 12–23.
Lommel, Herman. 1930. Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta
dargestellt. Tübingen: Mohr.
Martínez, Javier, and Michiel de Vaan. 2001. Introducción al avéstico.
Instrumenta Studiorum. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
May, Herbert G. 1961. ʻIndividual Responsibility and Retribution.ʼ Hebrew
Union College Annual 32, pp. 107–20.
Mayrhofer, Manred. 1992–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindoarischen. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Reihe 2, Wörterbücher.
Heidelberg: C. Winter. 3 vols.
Narten, Johanna. 1986. Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Panaino, Antonio. 2004a. ʻPer una definizione possibile del «monoteismo»
mazdaico. Note e considerazioni comparative con i grandi monoteismi
giudaico-cristiani.ʼ In L’interculturalità dell’ ebraismo. Ed. Mauro
Perani. Ravenna: Longo editore, pp. 15–34.
———. 2004b. ʻTrends and Problems concerning the Mutual Relations
between Iranian pre-Islamic and Jewish Cultures.ʼ In Schools of
Oriental Studies and the Development of Modern Historiography.
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and
Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, held in Ravenna, Italy, October
13–17, 2001. Ed. Antonio Panaino and Andrea Piras with collaboration
of Gian Pietro Basello. Melammu Symposia IV. Milano: Università di
Bologna & IsIAO, pp. 209–36.
Pirart, Éric. 1992. Kayān Yasn ( Yasht 19.9–96) : L’origine avestique des
dynasties mythiques d’Iran. Aula orientalis, Supplementa 2. Barcelona:
Editorial Ausa.
69
A l mu t Hin t z e
Pritchard, James B. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 3d ed. with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Rix, Helmut et al. 2001. LIV. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die
Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2nd ed. by Martin Kümmel
and Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Roth et al. 1971–72. ʻAfterlife.ʼ Encyclopaedia Judaica 2, pp. 336–39.
Schaeder, Hans Heinrich. 1930. Iranische Beiträge I. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Shaked, Shaul. 1971. ʻThe Notions mēnōg and gētīg in the Pahlavi Texts
and their Relation to Eschatology.ʼ Acta Orientalia 33, pp. 59–107.
———. 1984. ʻIranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second
Century C.E.ʼ In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 1: Introduction;
The Persian Period. Ed. W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, pp. 308–25.
———. 1994a. Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian
Iran. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 16. London: SOAS.
———. 1994b. ʻIntroduction.ʼ In Irano-Judaica III. Studies Relating to
Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages. Ed. Shaul
Shaked and Amnon Netzer. Jerusalem: The Ben-Zvi Institute for the
Study of Jewish Communities in the East, pp. 7–13.
———. 1998. ʻEschatology. i. In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence.ʼ
Encyclopædia Iranica 8, pp. 565–69.
———. 2001. ʻThe Moral Responsibility of Animals. Some Zoroastrian
and Jewish Views on the Relation of Humans and Animals.ʼ In
Kontinuitäten und Brüche in der Religionsgeschichte. Festschrift für
Anders Hultgård zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 23.12.2001. Ed. Michael
Stausberg. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde 31. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 578–95.
———. 2005. ʻZoroastrian Origins: Indian and Iranian Connections.ʼ In
Axial Civilizations and World History. Ed. Johann P. Arnason, S.N.
Eisenstadt, and Björn Wittrock. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and
Culture 4. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 183–200.
70
Sherwin, Simon J. 2007. ʻOld Testament Monotheism and Zoroastrian

Influence.ʼ In The God of Israel. Ed. Robert P. Gordon. University of
Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp.
113–24.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 1995. ‘Iranian Elements in Manicheism. A
Comparative Contrastive Approach. Irano-Manichaica I.’ In Res
Orientales VII, Au Carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe
Gignoux. Leuven: Peeters Press, pp. 263–84.
———. 1997a. ʻThe State of Old Avestan Scholarship.ʼ Journal of the
American Oriental Society 117/1, pp. 103–14.
———. 1997b. ʻAvestica 1: A Perfect Participle: vaoxuuā̊ŋhō.ʼ Journal of the
American Oriental Society 117/1, pp. 145–47.
———. 2003a. ʻTruth and Deception in Ancient Iran.ʼ In Ātaš-e dorun =
The Fire Within. Jamshid Soroush Soroushian Commemorative Volume.
Ed. Carlo G. Cereti and Farrokh Vajifdar. Bloomington, Indiana: 1st
Books Library, vol. 2, pp. 383–434.
———. 2003b. ʻZarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer.ʼ In Paitimāna. Essays in
Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter
Schmidt I-II. Ed. Siyamak Adhami. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers,
pp. 157–94.
———. 2003–4. ʻThe Antiquity of Old Avestan.ʼ Nāme-ye Irān Bāstān: The
International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 3/2, pp. 15–41.
———. 2013. ʻAfterlife in Zoroastrianism.ʼ In Jenseitsvorstellungen im Orient.
Ed. Predrag Bukovec and Barbara Kolkmann-Klamt. Religionen im
Vorderen Orient 1. Hamburg: Kovač, pp. 311–49.
Silverman, Jason M. 2012. Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on
the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic. LHBOTS, 558. London: T & T Clark.
Smith, Morton. 1963. ʻII Isaiah and the Persians.ʼ Journal of the American
Oriental Society 83/1, pp. 415–21.
———. 1990. ʻBible. ii. Persian Elements in the Bible.ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica
4, pp. 200–203.
71
A l mu t Hin t z e
Stausberg, Michael. 2007. ʻPara-Zoroastrianisms: Memetic Transmission

and Appropriations.ʼ In Parsis in India and the Diaspora. Ed. John R.
Hinnells and Alan Williams. Routledge South Asian Religion Series 2.
London: Routledge, pp. 236–54.
Sweeney, Marvin A. 1987. ʻNew Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah
27 Reconsidered.ʼ In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in
Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Ed. Graig A. Evans and William
F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 51–66. [Rept. in Sweeney
2014, pp. 79–93.]
———. 2014. Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertextuality, and Reception
in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature. Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Urbach, Efraim E. 1979. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Transl.
by Israel Abrahams. 2nd enlarged ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The
Hebrew University.
von Rad, Gerhard. 1957–60. Theologie des Alten Testaments. München:
Chr. Kaiser. 2 vols.
Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP.
Williams, Alan. 2008. ʻThe Continuum of “Sacred Language” From High
to Low Speech in the Middle Iranian (Pahlavi) Zoroastrian Tradition.ʼ
In Religion, Language and Power. Ed. Nile Green and Mary Searle-
Chatterjee. Routledge Studies in Religion 10. New York and Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 123–42.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. 1990. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House.
———. 1998. ʻLife, Death and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East.ʼ In Life
in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament.
Ed. Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, Mich., and Cambridge,
U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., pp. 21–50.
Zimmerli, Walther. 1951. ʻDas Gotteswort des Ezechiel.ʼ Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 48/3, pp. 249–62.
72

2019 Defeating Death Eschatology in Zoro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Defeating Death Eschatology in Zoro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRANO-JUDAICA VII

Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

© Copyright by the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 2019

001 Notes on contributors

221 Les raisonnements taxinomiques dans le Dēnkard 3

473 Jews and Christians in Late Sasanian Nisibis:

In Kellens’s view, Avestan eschatology is entirely and solely defined by

9 Cf. Shaked 2005: 196: ‘There is no contradiction in principle between a religion

Proto-Indo-Iranian and, ultimately, Proto-Indo-European culture. 12 After

pictures tend to emerge depending on which of the two ancillary sources

are his ‘wisdom’ (mazdā-), which he personifies, and his goodness. A

Y 44.3 tat̰ ϑβā pərəsā ərəš mōi vaōcā ahurā

tācīt̰ mazdā vasəmī aniiācā vīduiiē

Y 44.4 tat̰ ϑβā pərəsā ərəš mōi vaōcā ahurā

Y 44.5 tat̰ ϑβā pərəsā ərəš mōi vaōcā ahurā

The answer to these questions is, of course, Ahura Mazdā. He is presented

Y 37.1 iϑā āt̰ yazamaidē ahurəm mazdąm

The worshippers confirm their allegiance to Ahura Mazdā and their

Y 35.3 tat̰ at̰ ⁺varəmaidī ahurā mazdā

While earlier scholars interpreted the expression ‘two existences’ as

Y 28.2 yǝ̄ vā̊ mazdā ahurā pairī.jasāi vohū manaŋhā

The significance of the distinction between spiritual and material life

18 This view was earlier stated by Lommel 1930: 93ff., 144.

Y 30.2 sraōtā gǝ̄ušāiš vahištā auuaēnatā sūcā manaŋhā

Y 30.3 at̰ tā mainiiū ⁺ pauruiiē yā yǝ̄mā xᵛafənā asruuātəm

The generous discriminate rightly between these two, not the

23 The translation of line 2 above follows the interpretation of hī vahiiō akəmcā

contradicts the Younger Avestan and Middle Persian texts, according to

Y 30.4 at̰ cā hiiat̰ tā hǝ̄m mainiiū jasaētəm paōuruuīm dazdē

Y 45.1 at̰ frauuaxšiiā nū gūšō.dūm nū sraōtā

Y 45.2 at̰ frauuaxšiiā aŋhǝ̄uš mainiiū paōuruiiē

neither our beliefs nor our souls.

Y 45.3 at̰ frauuaxšiiā aŋhǝ̄uš ahiiā ⁺paōuruuīm

30 Zoroastrianism makes no distinction between men and women as moral agents.

Y 53.5 vaēdōdūm daēnābīš ⁺aibiiascā ahūm yǝ̄ vaŋhǝ̄uš manaŋhō

Y 46.11 xšaϑrāiš yūjǝ̄n karapanō kāuuaiiascā

Y 49.11 at̰ dušəxšaϑrǝ̄ṇg duš.š́iiaōϑanǝ̄ṇg dužuuacaŋhō

Y 71.16 yaϑa vaši aṣ̌ āum

Yt 19.89 (We worship Fortune), which will accompany

the material world, an effort which is brought to completion by the ‘victorious’

When the dead rise,

Yt 19.90 The (material) world of Truth will be incorruptible

Yt 19.92 When Astvatereta emerges

Yt 19.93 which Frangrasyan the Turanian bore

Yt 19.94 He will gaze with perceptive eyes.

with eyes that convey strength,

Yt 19.95 Advancing are the companions

Yt 19.96 Evil Thought is overcome,

38 Cf. Shaked 1994a: 9 and n. 10.

40 See Boyce 1989: 257–58.

within a religious structure, we should consider a kind of evolution of ideas

theory of evolution is ‘that essential basis of the idea which is held in

belong to a set of core concepts of a particular worldview, a memetic

be called ‘eschatology’ at all. There is nothing worthwhile to be expected

7. Remember that my life is a breath;

1 Sam 2:6 The Lord kills and brings to life;

Yahweh’s lordship encompasses both heaven and earth. He can even

49 Isa 41:17–20; 42:5–7; 43:1; 45:8; see Hartman 1971–72: 869.

quoted above. 50 This was observed by Morton Smith in a much noted

50 See pp. 29–32.

37:1–14), resurrection of the dead is usually interpreted as a metaphor

‘Isaiah Apocalypse’ (Isa 24–27), where it is presented as the means of re-

Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,

The second eschatological concept combined with resurrection is that of