But muh Zoroastrianism!!!

So it was probably heavily influenced by Zoroastrian morality, or the other way around?

Judaism is hugely influenced by Zoroastrianism, but not in a theological way. For many centuries, the heart of Jewish culture was in Baghdad. While the proto-Ashkenazim were establishing themselves as merchants along the Volga and Rhine, Jews in Iraq -- Babylon -- had a stable lifestyle under Sassanid protection, free to worship and contribute to the greater society without much fear of persecution.

The Talmud was assembled under Sassanid assent. Jews in Iraq were impressed by the legal code of the Persians, and wanted their own laws to apply to Jews everywhere. The Talmud incorporated elements of the Torah, Jewish tradition, and Sassanid jurisprudence. Extant legal records from pre-Islamic Spain look a lot like the Talmud, with extremely specific prohibitions and regulations.

There's a lot of dialogue about the Zoroastrian influence on early Christianity, but I don't know enough to speak of that. Did any Zoroastrian populations exist in the Roman Empire?

>They definitely evolved side-by-side, but there was an obvious collision in Isaiah. OT is very different pre-exile and post-exile.

And how do you know that collision was with Zoroastrianism? We have 0, repeat, 0 extant texts about what Zoroastrianism was like circa 600 B.C. The closest we have is a mention of their holy books some 800 years after that by third parties.

That they were influenced is fairly clear, what they were influenced by is far less so.

Sounds theological.

Even the clothing is similar to ancient Zoroastrian religious garments.

Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud wrote a good book arguing that Moses was an Egyptian priest in the cult of Aten.

There's significant parallels between ancient Egyptian religious hymns and parts of the Old Testament.

Was Freud wrong?

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, but I don't believe there's any observable influence of Zoroastrian thought on the way Jews perceive or revere Lord.

I could be wrong.

Not morality, but metaphysical qualities were adopted. By the time of Classical era Judaism, we see different "sects" (even as political parties) in Judaism. Sadducees, for example, only observed Torah, and they knew the wisdom and prophetic works to exist, but they should never be held above Torah which was supreme. Then Pharisees, who observed the works of the OT (generally) as we see them (plus books all have removed as Sirach) and they had the slightly different perspective of a coming savior because of the prophetic works. Essenes were even more esoteric, observing all works and some we may never hear of, and these were, to a degree, graduated even further into the concepts of angels, heaven, afterlife, a sort of duality between good and evil forces, and a final outcome.

So no, not morality, but more the way metaphysical concepts are brought into rational.

Moses probably wasn't real. But his name is Egyptian, think Thutmoses.

There's no way to know, but Moses is likely based on some kind of resistance leader during the centuries of Egyptian rule in Israel.

>-mose

Means "son of" or "divinely inspired by". Thutmose is as "descended of Thoth", or Rameses is to Ra or Amosis born of Iah. Just to say "Mose" means, basically, son of (ellipsis)

What was Egyptian for "River?"

Nile?

altaru, Greeks called it Nile.

So basically "Mosalteru," the Son of the River.

no. That is Hapmose or Hepmose.

That then.

Either way, he'd be named for the River because, well, you know.

Hell, Mosobek or something would work better because Sobek was the river god, not Atum.

>because Sobek was the river god, not Atum

Hapi, or Hepi. You know it's all transliteration from vaguely understood pronunciation. It's where there is, as I showed, Thutmoses Rameses Amosis. Sobek was for protection against the dangers in the river, like wildlife.

>Sobek was for protection against the dangers in the river, like wildlife
>Hapi was more of the general River god
Huh. Learn something new every day.

People think Judaism is a knock off of Zoroastrianism.

More like Proverbs is a rip-off of Egyptian wisdom literature.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15283-zoroastrianism#anchor6

>Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians.
Not. A. Meme.

>influence=complete bootlegging

>there are zero mentions of Zoroastrian beliefs until about 200 AD
>clearly, an entirely oral tradition had no changes happen to it for roughly 800 years and the beliefs of Zoroastrians were exactly the same then as when their stuff enters the historical record.
>Ergo, similarities are caused by Zoroastrian influence on Judaism.

I've seen this argument, and it is shit. It can only hold water by applying fundamentally differing levels of criticism to Zoroastrian holy texts as it does to Hebrew holy texts, and I've never heard an argument advanced as to why the former would be so unchanged through the centuries.

the answer is simple, Judaism through Christianity won out, thus Zoroastrian

Sauce? They're proverbs, it's not like they're always the most original things ever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_of_Amenemope#Comparison_of_texts

As I said, they are proverbs. Nothing ever that original or exclusive.

Freud was right!