Many scholars, however, explain the eschato- logical development of the period on the theory of the contact of Judaism with foreign systems of thought, and in particular maintain that the doc- trine of the resurrection was arrived at through the medium of Zoroastrianism, or at all events assumed the form it did under the stimulus of Persian influence. It can no longer be reasonably doubted that the resurrection formed part of the creed of the ancient Persians; and at any rate we have the express testimony of Theopompus (pre- served in Plutarch, ete.) that this doctrine was held by the Zoroastrians at the time of Alexander the Great, i.e. previous to its appearance in Daniel, and at least as early as Is 26% This theory is therefore historically possible. But can it be sub- stantiated ? Apart from the general presumption that the Jews would be disposed to regard favour- ably the religion of Cyrus, their deliverer, stress is laid upon the fact that the doctrine of an in- dividual resurrection appears in the OT only in writings dating from, or subsequent to, the Pers. period, and is (?) first put forward in a book, the writer of which had special connexion with Baby- lonia. These considerations, however, do not prove that the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection was derived from the religion of Zoroaster. As Nicolas has said, ‘Ideas do not pass ready-made and com- plete from one nation to another like the fruits of industry which are transported in caravans.’ And, in fact, the Jewish and Persian beliefs with regard to the resurrection of the body are not identical. Zoroastrianism knew nothing of a partial resurrec- tion, whether of the righteous and wicked as in Daniel, or of the righteous only as in 2 Mac. ete., and, unlike Judaism, looked for the final restora- tion of the wicked after the resurrection. The idea of simple borrowing is further precluded by the gradual formation of the Jewish doctrine, the development of which, in its principal stages, is distinctly traceable. This doctrine was of no sudden growth in Israel. It had long been nascent, when the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 307
gave it life and vigour as the grand sustaining hope of those who did battle for God’s law. This was a great turning-point in Judaism, and gave toit, as regards religious beliefs, modes of thought, and ethical practice, a character which has been stamped on all its subsequent history. Scribes and people were united by a common patriotism. The religious conscience was awakened; men looked eagerly for the promised Deliverer, and in the assurance of His coming found a new life. Those who shed their blood to prepare the advent of His kingdom would be raised up to share in its bliss. The resurrection of the dead was thus the necessary complement of the Messianic hope, and in its earlier form was set forth as the first act of the victorious Messiah, and as the privilege of Jews only. This is the genuinely Jewish form of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and had a distinct place in an order of ideas called forth by the crisis which overtook the Jewish nation in the second quarter of the 2nd cent. B.c. It did not owe its existence to foreign influence, but was the result of internal development.
But there may be stimulus without transference, and this appears to be what really happened in the case before us. The foreign influence was not such as to supply or even fundamentally to affect the doctrine itself ; at most it helped to determine the form of its development. Naturally, therefore, it does not seem to count for much in any single passage in which it can be traced; yet the cumu- lative effect of its presence in frequent instances is not to be denied. For an interesting enumeration of passages from the OT and post-canonical litera- ture giving evidence of Parsi influence on Jewish eschatology, see par. 7 of the article ZOROASTRI- ANISM in vol. iv. Among other (and more doubt- ful) examples the following perhaps may be safely allowed. Is 24? speaks of an intermediate place of punishment for evil powers, where they are im- | prisoned prior to their final judgment. Even Charles, who thinks that the influence of Zoroas- trianism on Jewish eschatology was but slight, admits that the ideas here expressed ‘appear as a foreign element in the OT, and may be derived from the Mazdean religion.’* Cf. in this con- nexion Jude®, Enoch 18:26 216, The new heaven and new earth of Is 65!” 6622, to be ushered in after the Last Judgment and overthrow of evil, cor- responds to the Pers. doctrine of ‘renewal’ after the world’s purification by ‘the ordeal of molten metal.’ The latter may also have suggested the figure used in Mal 3? 41. In Ps 17% 4914 there is probably a reflexion of the Pers. conception of the dawn as a daily emblem of the resurrection. In the later Apocalyptic literature also traces of Parsism occur. In Enoch (45*") reference is made to the transformed heaven and earth; and its location of the mountain of God’s throne in the south (18°), taken along with the placing of a hell in the north (Secrets of Enoch, 10), recalls an- other characteristic of Parsi literature. Through the medium of earlier Jewish apocalyptic, many Persian ideas found their way also into the Apoca- lypse, ¢.g. the binding of the old serpent, Satan’s futile attack upon heaven, the millennium, etc. In the peculiar and epoch-making circumstances of their nation the Jews assimilated certain foreign elements, and grafted them upon the data supplied by their own sacred books—so modifying them, however, as to make them fit into and complete their own doctrinal system, with a view to the fuller expression of their own spiritual needs. LireRATURE.—Besides the OT Theologies of Oehler, Schultz,