In the Persian Empire of the book of Esther, the Gnostic fire ... - WBM

Yehud – the Persian designation for the Land
of Israel at that time – to provide a fascinating
window into Jewish-Zoroastrian relations, yet
this is not the case. Just as we find in the Cyrus
Cylinder, Persian pragmatism and “secular”
bureaucracy ruled the day. On the other hand,
despite its many historical problems and the
total absence of references to divinity, the book
of Esther preserves some intriguing fragments of
the Jewish-Zoroastrian encounter.
Zoroastrianism is to be found first and foremost
in the theophoric names (i.e., those including
the name of a god) of some of the book’s main
characters. Typical of Zoroastrianism, many of
these appellations express concepts deified in
the Avesta. For example, the name Mehuman
derives from Vohu Manah, which means
“Good Mind.” Fascinatingly, in the Zoroastrian
pantheon, Vohu Mana is one of the seven
Amesha Spentas, or beneficent immortals.
This parallels Mehuman’s position as one of
Ahasuerus’ seven eunuchs. Another reference
to the Mind can be found in the name of the
arch villain, Haman, which seems to come from
hammanah – “of like mind.” As Harvard scholar
James Russel has put it, rulers in all times and
places tend to cherish yes-men. Haman’s father,
similarly, is Hammedatha, which means “of the
same dat,” or law. Indeed, it seems that the use
of the word dat (source of the Hebrew term dat
– religion) throughout the book of Esther subtly
critiques the seemingly arbitrary rule of law in
Persian and Zoroastrian culture.
Once we reach the Second Temple era, Jewish
literature and thought shifts dramatically.
Emphasis is placed on the afterlife, eschatology,
and the soul – now a battleground of
good versus evil. These ideas dominate
Zoroastrianism and how Zoroastrians perceived
reality. Nowhere in ancient Judaism is this new
dualism stronger than at Qumran, where the
sect responsible for composing the Dead Sea
Scrolls contemplated the end of history and
the ultimate war between good and evil. In
numerous Second Temple texts – including the
scrolls – evil is seen as separate from God, and
opposing Him. Satan and his cohorts develop
into a full-blown maleficent force. The demon
Ashmedai debuts in Jewish tradition in the
book of Tobit, written in the second century BCE.
Unlike his more playful talmudic counterpart,
this character is lustful and dangerous. In the
literature of the Second Temple period, Jewish
monotheism veers closer to dualism than ever
before.
Surprisingly, this trend takes place at a point
when there was little direct contact between
Jews and Zoroastrians. Alexander the Great
had already defeated the Persian armies during
the fourth century BCE; subsequently, Hellenist
forces ruled Judea as well as most Iranian lands.
In fact, one of the greatest mysteries of ancient
Jewish intellectual history is how Second Temple
Jews, and particularly sects living in relative
isolation, seem to have engaged in a protracted
dialogue with Iranian ideas. However this
encounter came about, its far-reaching effects on
the development of Judaism are indisputable.
The Sasanian Talmud
Not long after its completion in the fifth or
sixth century, the Babylonian Talmud became
the most influential text in Judaism besides the
Bible. Its authority was of course assumed in
Babylonia, but in time the Talmud’s influence
spread to North Africa and Europe as well.
Because of this profound impact, a proper
understanding of the Talmud is essential not
only for historians of Babylonian Jewry, but also
for scholars of subsequent periods of Jewish
history. The question of how to define the
voluminous tome that graces the Jewish
bookshelf to this day affects
how Jewish practice,
theology, and culture –
which derive largely from
the Talmud – are to be
understood.
This basic definitional
problem has puzzled
Talmud scholars and
historians for centuries.
On the one hand, despite
its name, the Babylonian
Talmud is preoccupied
with the Land of Israel
and is a commentary
on and repository of
Palestinian rabbinic texts.
It explains the Mishna,
compares it to the Tosefta
and other early rabbinic
works, and transmits the
opinions of the Sages,
many of whom dwelt in
Palestine. Yet a perusal
of its pages
indicates
that it was
firmly
Zoroastrianism
The Cube of Zoroaster, from
the Achaemenid period
in Naqsh-e Rustam, Iran.
For centuries, this stone
structure was assumed to
be a Zoroastrian fire temple,
but this supposition has been
discredited
Photo: dynamosquito
The Jewish Journey through History Shevat/Adar 5772 35