Encylodaedia Biblica; a critical dictionary of the literary, political and ...

ZOROASTRIANISM BUR
The results here arrived at are not affected by Darmesteter's
later views on the Avesta, for (I) these views are extremely
difficult to justify, and ( 2) Darmesteter in 1893 admitted1 that
the defeat of Ahriman, the resurrection, and the renovation of
the world, were already dogmatically fixed in the time of the
Achaemenidre.
It is much less certain, and yet far from improbable,
that the interest of the later Jews in 'Wisdom ' was
24. ,Wisdom.' stimulated by a kindred phenomenon in
The stress laid in the
Avesta and elsewhere on the two kinds of Wisdom2 Zoroastrianism.
(heavenly and ?arthly) reminds us of the references to
two kinds of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs. In later
times the Jews identified the heavenly Wisdom with the
Law; they took up, it seems, with enthusiasm the
Zoroastrian idea of the pre-existence in heaven of the
personified divine Law. It is also just conceivable that
the comparatively high morality of the pre-Maccakan
Judaism may be partly due to the influence of the
morality of Zoroastrianism. Certainly the Zoroastrian
phrase, ' good thoughts, good words, good deeds,'
might have been taken as a motto by the Jewish wise
men and psalmists, and if the received text of Pss. 16
17 49 73 is correct, it will be reasonable to compare
the expressions of the hope of immortality and resurrection
which that text may be held to contain, with
expressions of the same hope in the GiXthBs. It may
justly be questioned, however, whether the received text
is correct. There are phenomena which no grammatical
or exegetical subtlety can explain away, which seem to
compel us to assume corruption of the text. But for
this, we should certainly not be greatly surprised to find
the hope of a future life emerging in any part of the
Psalter, this book in all its parts being certainly a work
of the Persian and Greek periods.
It has also been conjectured that the early myths of
Genesis have a Zoroastrian origin. This view, however,
2~. Late Judaism. was possible only before the wonderful
discoveries in the libraries of
Assyria. The ultimate sources of these early myths are
probably N. Arabian and Babylonian, whilst the second
Fargard of the Zoroastrian writing called the Vendidad,
in its present form, may even have been influenced by
the narratives in Genesis3 It is true, the Talmudic
and Midrashic statements on the First Man exhibit
strong Persian elements. But this is only what might
be expected in the .?a& Judaism. It is remarkable that
under the Sassanid kings Zoroastrianism appears to
have been in some degree affected by Jewish influences
-a slight compensation for the long-continued indebtedness
of Jewish to Zoroastrian belief.
Here this brief survey must close. A full exegetical
treatrrient of the Biblical passages would have unduly
extended this article. Enough if the close resemblance
between Judaism and Zoroastrianism has been brought
home to the reader. Elsewhere a parallel between
Zoroaster and John the Baptist has been suggested.
But, if we may follow the most respected authorities,
this comparison does not go far enough. Indeed, there
is no figure equal in interest to Zoroaster's : he is a
prophet, reformer, sacred poet all in one, and has left
an abiding impress on a faith which is as strongly
moral as the Jewish, and without some acquaintance
with which neither the later Judaism nor the later
Christianity can be adequately appreciated.
An attempt to reconsider the relation of Judaism to Zoroastrianism
on the basis of the sacred texts and of the most
modern authorities is to he found in Cheyne's
26. Literature. Ok&z &fhe Psalter(l8yr), pp. 357.394-409,
433.440 ; ' Possible Zoroastrian Influences on
the Religion of Ancient Israel ' Expos. Times June July
August 1891 ; 'The Book of Ps&s, its origin ahd redtion t;
Zoroastrianism, Semitic Studies in memory of A, Kohut,
1897, pp. 111-119; 3ew. Eel. Liye affev thc Exile, 74, 81, 151,
I~?,ZIO,Z~I, 2588 Sef: also Moulton, Expos. Tirncs, May1898,
~ ~~~
1 Le Zendavcsta 12 Ixxiii.
2 See Che. Ex& 5 78J lm. ReL Life, 15,.
See CREATION DELUG;
4 Darmesteter, fin8 #ri2rej&lo+-rsane, Paris, 1891.
5441
pp. 352 8 (essay by a Zend scholar, putting forward the same
r l view and the same leading facts as the first-named work).
tave, Ueber d. Einfluss d. Parsismus auf d. fudenthum:
1898 ; Soderblom, La Yiejuture d'apre's le Mnzaisme (1901).
BGklen, Lferurandtschaft der ju'rfisch-christl. mit der jersiscd
Eschafologie (~yzrz). Oldenberg (ZDMG 5043-68 [1896]) gives
fresh reason for believing in close relations at an early date
between Iranian and Babylonian religion. Hommel too (PSBA
21 1378 [rsggl) points out that the foreign-looking divine name
Assaramazas, in an Assyrian list of gods, is really Ahura-mazda .
also that the divine names Mitra and Marun, found in Assyriad
religious texts, are the same as the Vedic Mitra and Varuna.
These names were borrowed by the Assyrians, according to
Hommel, in the Kassite period (1700-1202 B.c.). Zimmern too
(KAT(3) 346 n. I), points out, in harmony with the prisent
article, that the relation of Parsism to Babylon needs to he more
closely examined. K. B. G., $5 1-19 ; T. IC. c., 55 20-26.
ZORZELLEUS (zopzehh~oy [A]), I Esd. 5 38.
See BARZILLAI, 2.
ZTJAR (YjU ; cwrap [BAFL]), an Issacharite (Nu.
18 [PI).
ZUPH (?ID), Dt.11, AVW., RV SUPH (q.~.).
ZUPH (VlY, as if ' honeycomb '). The 'land of
Zuph' (I S. 95, mi@ [BA], ut@ [L]) is the district
about the unnamed city where Samuel and Saul met.
In I S. 1 I (vauctp [B], uoua [A], uw@ [L] ; and I Ch.
635 [zo], Kr. oou@ [BA], aou@r [L]) the descent of
Elkanah is apparently traced back to an ancestor Zuph ;
I Ch. 6 26 [II]. however, gives the name as Zophai,
or as we might vocalise, Zuphi-i. e., ' the Zuphite '
(UOU@[E]L [BAL]).
Most critics also find ,~)y (a Zuphite) in I S. 1 I, on which
1W7? at the end of the verse may, it is thought, he a gloss. If,
therefore 'Zuph ' in I S. 9 5 is the same as 'Zuph'. in I S. 1 I,
etc., the 'land of Zuph' will mean probably the district held by
the clan Zuph.
It appears, however (see RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM), that the MT
of I S. 1 I (on which I Ch. 0 35 [20] depends) is very corrupt, and
that no use can he made of )s, or Zuph, which is probably
7
incorrect. The ca;se is the same with 'Zuph' in the phrase
'the land of Zuph. Of a Zuph in Mount Ephraim (commonly
so called) we know nothing, and the supposed reference to such
a land throws the geography of Saul's journey into great confusion.
IlX or (see @) ?'+ in I s. Q 5 is very possibly a corrupt
fragment of 3>:?, Mizpah ; it is the Mizpah referred to in I S.
'7 5 8 and 10 17, and, as 7 16 shows, specially connected with
Samuel. See MIZPAH, I.
Winckler indeed has suggested (Gf 2) that the land of Zuph
(cp Ramathaim-zophim) was in the territory of Benjamin before
the reductionof its limits by David (who according to Winckler,
conquered Benjamin and excluded frdm it 'the hill count
of Ephraim'). There is also the possibility that 'the hi2
country of Ephraim' spoken of was in the Negeb, and that 1's'
as well as qiD, comes fiom nois. There does appear to have
been a southern Ephraim and though to find it in I S. 9 4 would
subvert all our theories, ;et we must leave the question open
whether the home of Saul may not have been in the Negeb,
improbable as this may seem.
31 is also supported hy I Ch.'820 Kt?. On the form +B?S
(I'Ch. 611) cp Kittel, SBOT, Chron. ad loc. In T S 11
Wcllbausen, Klostermann, Marquart, read ~ I D H lis, ' Zuph
of Ephraim.' T. K. C.
ZTJR (and its possible compounds). We find VU,
Zur (sur), used as a synonym for God or as an element
in a compound title descriptive of God as the Mighty
One, in Is. 17 IO, and in many late exilic and post-exilic
passages.
See Dt. 324 15 18 30 31 [ais], 37 I S. 22 zS. 22 [=Ps. 181
3 32 47 [dis] 23 3 Ps. 19 15 1141 28 I 31 3 [Z] 62 3 78[2 6 71 71 3 73 26
7835 8927 [26] 9216[r51 9422 951 1441 [also 756, @] Is. 264
3029 448 Hab. 112.1
Among these passages Dt. 324 18 30$, I S. 23 Is.
448 Hab. 112 are specially important, because here 'us,
' Rock,' appears to have become altogether a synonym
for ' God.'a To these we may perhaps add Josh. 1558,
where BETH-ZUR (4.v.) may mean house of Zur'=
' house of God.'3 Are we to suppose that phrases like
1 Is. 30 29 and Hah. 1126 are probably late ; see the commentaries
of hlarti and Nowack.
2 In Ps. 75 6 we should probably read neither 7~)fll nor 1~1,
but i~"?!: (cp 81 19 [IS]).
3 Ho&el (AHT 320, cp 300) also compares the royal name
in3 (Bir-sur) in the inscription of Panammu, king of Sam'al
(8th cent.), and the S. Arabian woman's name ZurL'addana.
5442