The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

Poor Dumplin' Dumbash really should pay better attention. Here you will find my depth treatment of the subject of whether resurrection was stolen from the Zoroastrians. Poor Dumplin' thought my article on Zoraster was all there was to it. That's what happens when you make a fool of yourself and don't do research.

Not surprisingly, Dumplin' is waaaay in over his head here, so he is reduced to sound bites:

James Patrick Holding, writing for the Tekton Apologetics Ministries, has got guts, I'll give him that. He takes on the evidence linking Zoroastrianism to the Pharisees, and tries to discredit it. His approach boils down to trying to manufacture some doubt about the timing, and who borrowed from whom, and he leaves out some very significant factors, but I think it's still a brave effort on his part. He begins by admitting that there is some grounds for the connection.

Um, actually, Dumpy, that article was NOT about "evidence linking Zoroastrianism to the Pharisees," it was about those who try to link Zoroaster to Jesus as a "copycat Christ" figure. I did incidentally cover a few other topics, but because Dumpy doesn't know what the article is actually about, he's lost from the get-go. Not that he would not be anyway. He's already confused one of Glenn Miller's articles for my own, and now get this. To where I say:

I usually start these by saying a little about the subjects themselves. A key issue seems to be, "When did Zoroaster actually live?" Interestingly enough there has even been a few "Zoroaster-mythers" who said (as Bultmann said of Jesus!) "nothing can be said" of the historical Zoroaster [Rose.IZ, 15]. J. M. Robertson, who also stumped for a mythical Jesus and a mythical Buddha, took up the Zoroaster-myth (to which a Zoroastrian scholar responded, "I have myself indeed divined and published the argument by which Mr. Robertson's successors fifty years hence will irrefutably prove him a myth") [Wat.Z, 11]. One Zoroastrian scholar did go along with the idea eventually, but died before he could justify his position. At any rate, most of the sources I consulted prefer a date around 600 B.C., though one scholar has suggested a date as early as 1700 BC [Yam.PB, 414].

Dumpy assures us, The scholarship Holding is referring to dates back to the 1800's. More recent studies of early Iran have come to somewhat different conclusions. Huh? Say what? What "dates back to the 1800s" here? Robertson (who is on the OTHER side of the ideological scale) was born in 1856, but the source cited the other way, Yalamuchi, is dated 1990, and my sources from Zoroastrian scholarship date into the late 1900s. Not only that, Dumpy is so confused that he cites a page that says that Zoroaster can be placed "anywhere from the 13th century BCE to just before the rise of the Achaemenid empire under Cyrus II the Great (q.v.) in the mid-6th century BCE, with the majority of scholars seeming to favor dates around 1000 BCE" -- which is hardly contrary to what I offered, given the survey of views I discovered. Dumpy's real problem is that he's not even getting the argument right, as he says:

1000 BC is plenty early enough to have a well-established Zoroastrian religion by the time the first Jewish exiles showed up in that part of the world in the early sixth century.

COUGH -- er, pardon me, Dumpy, but you're confusing two issues here: 1) the date of Zoroaster the PERSON with 2) the dates of the doctrines of Zoroastrian religion such as we know it. This is a fairly stupid mistake, as Dumpy even manages to quote my section which speaks of the lateness of available sources (eg, the Avesta). What does he say to this? First, he has to throw his cutesy tempter tantrum:

Let me just note in passing that the hymns of Zoroaster are the prophet's revelations, and not just some inconsequential singalong, as Holding seems to imply.

"Seems to imply"? HOW? Here is what I said:

Some of the material probably comes from a time before the Christian era, but most of this is reckoned to be hymns and some basic information [Rose.IZ, 17] that was part of the oral tradition. The rest seems likely to have been added later, and for good reason, as Rose notes [ibid., 27]:

Yeah, I sure do see "some inconsequential singalong" implied in THAT, don't you? Shame on me. Which word did it, Dumpy? Was it "basic" or "reckoned" that set your alarms off? Or is it just something you made up to try to score cheap points? Dumpy goes on to say:

But I want to focus on the main thrust of Holding's argument above. Isn't it marvelous? He realizes he cannot credibly deny the link between Judeo-Christianity and Zoroastrianism, so he tries to create some doubt about the dates and then accuses the Zoroastrians of stealing from the Jews and/or Christians! Gotta hand it to him, that is one clever ploy.

Yeah, it's awful clever of me to call on those scholars (not Christians or apologists) such as Zaehner and Bremmer, huh. Now you'd hope that Dumbash would come up with something showing us that the Avesta ought to be dated earlier, and that ends that, but you'd be dreaming if you thought he actually did some legwork. Instead, we get childish social theory, sans hard evidence:

First of all, let's consider what happens when an established body of religious doctrine suddenly confronts a new and different body of doctrine. History gives us many examples: Martin Luther and the Catholics, Zoroaster and the Mithraists, Pentecostalism and traditional Christianity, etc. What typically happens? Do the leaders of the existing religion meekly and silently abdicate their authority and hand their pulpits over to the newcomers, or does each group develop as a separate body, with distinct sets of leaders, followers, doctrines, and practices?

It's pretty much universal: the new religion grows up alongside the old. One or the other may die out eventually, but there's inevitably a period where both religions exist side-by-side, in direct dialog with one another, if not outright conflict.

If Holding's version is correct, then, we should find one flavor of Z+oroastrianism, minus the distinctly Christian elements such as monotheism, final judgment, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on, existing prior to the time Zoroastrianism had to seriously confront Christianity, around the 9th century AD. Then when the Christianized version of Zoroastrianism arose, we ought to see the Zoroastrian religion split into two branches: one holding on to the older beliefs of traditional Zoroastrianism, and the other accepting new "revelations" that incorporated the distinctly Christian beliefs and practices into the faith. Needless to say, nothing in the historical record suggests that such a thing ever happened, nor was there any such report from the sixth century BC, during the Jewish Exile.

What the hell this is supposed to prove is hard to say. No one in the scholarly world argues that Judaism and Zoroastrianism had any sort of "conflict" which would force one side or the other to "abdicate their authority" and compete for followers. That's one of the reasons why a borrowing thesis (in any direction, actually) is so stupid, and why it is far more likely that the concept of resurrection arose in both faiths because of their shared view of the human being as a total mind-body complex. Nor is there anyone ever claiming that Christianity had such a battle with Zoroastrianism at any critical stage. (And how'd we jump from Judaism to Christianity here?) Dumpy is inventing history to explain away history, and doesn't even get what history he has straight:

The alternative is that the Jews, a tribe of defeated, exiled polytheists, were brought into contact with Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, and saw an explanation for their God's humiliating defeat: Zoroaster's monotheism was correct and God was punishing them for having been polytheists. Meanwhile, back in Palestine, the remaining Jews remained polytheistic (or more accurately, henotheistic), following the established priesthood. Upon the return of the exiled, monotheistic Jews from Persia, these two groups would have been in conflict, with the former exiles preaching Zoroastrian ideas like resurrection, angels, demons, heaven, hell, judgment, etc, and the non-exiles denying them.

Um, I hate to inform your ignorance, Dumpy, but....the Jews were never "defeated" or "exiled" by the Persians; it was the Babylonians that did that, and the Persians actually were very nice to the Jews and reversed their exile. Which means yet another reason why they would have had no conflict in religious terms.

But Dumpy is even more desperate than that; he actually goes this far down the hole of bad scholarship:

Is history consistent with this scenario? Absolutely. The Bible itself testifies that after the return from the Exile, the Jewish religion was split into two camps: the Sadducees, followers of the priestly order of Zadok (the original Mosaic religion), and the Pharisees, who in contrast to the Sadducees preached all of the Zoroastrian ideas listed above. What's more, the name "Pharisee" gives us some insight into their origin and nature.

The Pharisees claimed that their name came from the Hebrew word "peras," meaning "separated," as in "separatists". There are a couple points to note about this attribution, however. First, "peras" does not mean "separated" in the sense of "set apart," it means "divided, split." It's the word used for the name Perez ("because in his days there was a great earthquate and the earth divided") and in the Law, for animals that "split the hoof". If "Pharisee" came from "peras," it wouldn't mean "separatists" but "the Divided Ones." But secondly and more importantly, this definition omits any mention of the fact that there's a Hebrew (and Aramaic) word that's very similar: "paras," which means Persia. And the way you take a noun like "Persia" and turn it in to an adjective like "Persian" is to add the "ee" sound, in Hebrew and Aramaic: "Parasee" (or "Pharasee/Pharisee", as the language evolved in later centuries).

I last saw this stupid idea about "Pharisee" from Brian McLaren, and its no better from the other end of the jackass either. Taking the linguistic games to task, though:

1. In terms of "the Divided Ones," what's the issue here? This is a distinction without a difference: Separatists ARE ones divided, from those they separate from. Dumpy is apparently trying to show off what he learned from Wikipedia.
2. So there's a word "paras" that means "Persia". Well, whoopee. The linguistic games here are the sort of thing we'd expect to find from Acharya S or Lloyd M. Graham; it takes a great deal of simple-mindedness to use similarities in English spelling to make a connection between words in two entirely different languages.

The most amusing aspect of this, though, is that none of the scholarly sources on Zoroastrianism I consulted make this connection. And Dumpy doesn't even try to validate this claim with a notation to a source. The even bigger joke is that the name "Pharisee" first emerges in the time of the Maccebeean revolt (c. 167 BC) at a time when all things non-Jewish were regarded with disdain -- a time when "separation," we might add, seems to have been all the rage. Is Dumpy seriously suggesting that in this context, the Pharisees reached back hundreds of years to a foreign group in order to give themselves a name?

Dumpy gives a hint as to why he is this ignorant when he speaks of "Bible college days". That is the extent of his education, and explains his ignorance quite satisfactorily.

On the side, Dumpy decides to have a little fling with the book of Job, which he notes "mentions no persons or places or tribes or other identifying features from the history and area of ancient Israel." He rightly notes as well that Christian scholars (including Holding) explain this by claiming that Job is just a very old book, and refers to events and persons from long ago, before the other Old Testament accounts. He regards this as a "shaky explanation, though," because:

...the other OT accounts go all the way back to "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth," and because none of the other OT books ever mention any of the persons, places, tribe, or other features of Job. Think of that! For all the stories of suffering and affliction that Israel's faithful endured, it never occurred to any of them to make a comparison to Job's story, or to draw comfort from its message. Does that sound plausible to you?

Um, actually, yes, and merely posturing in astonishment is not an answer that makes it any less plausible. For one thing, by the time of the writings of the other OT books, all the persons in the book of Job were DEAD. That sort of makes it less than likely that they'd be mentioned; likewise, places, features, and other aspects by these later dates would be changed or have new and different connotations. Second, this is just Doherty-speak: Dumpy needs to show that there are places Job OUGHT to have been mentioned, and show that the silence is significant. He does neither, and his own posturing astonishment is not an argument. Indeed, he needs to do more than that and show that there is a consistent appeal to books other than Job that makes Job's absence peculiar. He won't, because he can't.

Dumpy has his own goofy idea that "Job is a Persian story, and refers to Persian people, places, and ideas (including the idea of resurrection)" and seems to think it odd that Jesus never appealed to Job for the doctrine of the resurrection. Why he should have done so is not clear. Job is an example of ancient dialogue literature; the idea of redemption (but not the mechanics of resurrection) is there, but so is Job's statement, "As a cloud dissolves and vanishes, so he who goes down to the nether world shall come up no more" which could be read as anti-resurrection. Jesus' appeal to "I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB" is hardly a bad reference as Dumpy implies for it cuts to the heart of the Sadduceean lack of belief in the afterlife -- without which, there isn't even resurrection.

Dumplin' is clearly a fundamentalist of the worst sort even now, as he asks rather fooloshly:

Jesus' exchange with the Sadducees is also interesting because he drives home his point by saying "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." God is not the God of the dead? You mean that God's not your God any more once you die? Or does that mean that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not dead? But if they're not dead, they can't be resurrected, so how is that an argument for resurrection?

In the context of the response to the Sadducees, "dead" here clearly means "dead and without existence" -- not just "dead to the world." But as wacky as that is, Dumbash gets wackier yet:

Jesus' argument sounds like nonsense unless you happen to remember that the Sadducees were still polytheists. The reason why Jesus' argument impressed people so much is because in the original religion taught by Moses, Yahweh was not the god of the dead, a god named "Mot" was. Jesus' argument still does not give any scriptural/Mosaic basis for a doctrine of resurrection, but it was a very impressive way to sneak in an insinuation that the Sadducees' polytheism contradicted their own scriptures.

What part of his bum Dumpy pulled this out of, one can only guess. It certainly isn't credentialed scholars who say that the Sadducees were polytheists and had a god named Mot in their pantheon!

Dumplin' also tries to defuse the connection to Satan, as I noted:

Others argue that the Jewish idea of Satan is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. But Satan appears in Job, a very early book, and is nothing like the evil Zoro god Ahriman, who is a dualistic equal to Ohrmazd the good god, rather than a subordinate. Finally, it is significant that while the OT used plenty of Persian loanwords for governmental matters, they did not use any for religion [Yam.PB, 463]. The most we find is, I am told, the name of a Persian demon in the Book of Tobit!

Dumpy excuses the lack of connecting evidence by saying that "the Pharisees would use their own names and customize the doctrines to fit their own particular theological needs," which is the same as an excuse that since the evidence doesn't prove the point, we need an excuse of some sort. Dumpy also asks:

(And what's a Persian demon doing in Jewish writings, even in Tobit?)

That's a fairly dumb question; why a Persian demon ought not be used is not explained. He goes on:

Holding neglects to mention the fact that Satan is largely missing from the oldest parts of the OT, and is absent from the Pentateuch entirely. He's not even in the garden of Eden!

I don't neglect this at all -- Dumpy is just looking in the wrong place. I don't mention Satan specifically there, but the principle is the same; Dumplin' here is more likely unwittingly admitting that he had some idea as a Christian of Satan as the Everywhere Guy who stole your car keys to annoy you.

The rest of the page is a list of things that Zoroastrians believe that some have suggested were added into Judaism by the Pharisees. Holding's response to each of these can be summed up in one or two statements: either "Yeah, that's probably right," or "I couldn't find a reference for this one (so it must be ok to disbelieve it)."

Funny how Dumplin' doesn't mention that the lack of references is in the works of scholars of Zoroastrianism -- it sure beats him coming up with positive evidence to support his claim.

He does give reasonable evidence against one or two trivial points, but the main contribution of Zoroastrianism (resurrection, judgment, heaven, hell, salvation, apocalypse) are all true, as even Holding admits. He still maintains, however, that skeptics have failed to prove their case, because he couldn't find the supporting references for a list given by one scholar.

One scholar! Beg pardon, that was Acharya S, not a "scholar," so Dumplin' still doesn't get the point of the article -- much less does he accurately represent my conclusions, particularly ignoring the points in bold:

He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. As this goes, it is true, but not all of these terms have the same meaning in Zoroastrianism that they do in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only "resurrection" is a good match here -- Zoro's faith taught that after judgment, the "dead will rise up" and men will become "not-aging, not-dying, not-decaying, not-rotting" [Herz.ZW, 299]. It's resurrection, it sounds like, though described by negatives. In terms of the other stuff, there aren't a lot of similarities [Wat.Z, 95, 96, 98, 102]. Salvation was by works alone; there was "practically no place for repentance or pardon:" and "no doctrine of atonement." There is some issue about the fate of the wicked; one account says they will be tormented three days, then return to do good deeds; another source says they will be annihilated. There is an essential equivalent to Heaven and Hell, but it wouldn't be too hard to create such a concept independently one way or the other based on the simple assumption that people will get what they deserve. Judgment would be made by committee: the Persian Mithra and two other gods are on the panel. If you aren't sure where you might go, word is that Zoro himself will come and plead for you. A concept of purgatory appears in a Zoroastrian work of the 5th-6th century, and later Zoroastrianism did develop rites of repentance and expiation, contrary to Zoroaster's recorded teachings. There's an apocalypse planned to be sure: a flood of molten metal to burn off the wicked. Zoro eschatology comes for the most part, however, from those late AD sources [Yam.PB, 465].

It's pretty clear to me that Dumplin' arrives at his conclusion that "Old Testament record is overwhelmingly consistent with the conclusion that the doctrinal distinctives of Pharisaism are Persian imports" by ignoring the evidence, and making excuses for when the evidence is against him, as well as lying profusely about the content of my articles (not to mention failing to understand their purpose).