Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism

Skip navigation

Sidebar -

↑ ↓

CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Theme Changer

Site default theme Optional dark theme Basic wap2 interface

Topic: Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism

(Read 8207 times)

12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
OP - July 24, 2014, 07:11 PM

Very few people seem to know of the significance of Zoroastrianism to the development of the Abrahamic religions. In this post I will try and explain the extent of the 'borrowing' and also how it came to be. I will try and keep it as short as possible.

The fact is Christianity and Islam are nothing less than corrupted versions of Zoroastrianism. Judaism, remaining more an 'ethnic identity' than is less concerned with belief so somewhat less defined by its influence from Zoroastrianism. The religions of Jesus and Muhammed resemble far more closely the religion of Zoroaster than that of Abraham

Let us start by defining what the Abrahamic faiths are, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What do they all have in common?

Strict Monotheism (Only one true God, all others are False Gods)
Universalism
Duality (Good vs Evil, God and Satan etc)
Heaven and Hell
End of the World/The Final Battle between Good and Evil led by the Messiah
Resurrection and Judgement

In short, the religions pretty much state there is one god, that believing in that god is important and it is a sin to believe in others, that good and bad deeds are accounted for. One will be judged in the hereafter and receive reward or punishment as per their 'deed-book'.

As far as I knw no other religion believes in those things even though some others can be considered monotheistic. Except for Zoroastrianism. The above are main beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths and what receive all the attention. Abraham and Moses are comparatively unimportant in Islam and Christianity.

The above belief system finds its way into Judaism around 500BC. Around that time the Jews had been captured from Isreal by the Babylonians and held in captivity. They spent some time there until the Acheamenid Persians took Babylon and freed the Jews. Cyrus set the Jews free and also decreed the building of the second temple. Cyrus paid for the second temple. It is at this point, under the influence of the Persian elite and their state religion of Zoroastrianism, that the religion of Judaism as we know it is born.

Prior to this, Judaism doesnt really exist as a singular and cohesive belief system. It is not really monotheistic, although worship of Yahweh is common amongst them. There is animal sacrifice and polytheism. A rather ill-defined mish-mash of practices resembling very little of the above, though probably held together by the Covenant of Abraham and Yahweh.

Cyrus allowed the Jews to run their country, but required that they produce a Law to which all Jews would be held accountable to. This Law came into being as the Torah and was compiled at that point. Ezra and Nehemia were the two most important law givers of the time, and both were working for the Persian administration at high levels. The Law given at that time by Ezra was called the Law of Moses. It was said the Law had been found in documents at the old temple and so was from the time of Moses, but had been lost and now was being re-instated. Sounds dubious.

It is around this time, post Exhile, at the compilation of the Torah, that strict monotheism becomes established. Over time, as the Torah takes shape, the religion begins to resemble more and more what we know of it. However, there is one more thing that makes the Persian subversion complete.

The Pharisees were a faction of 'progressive' jews open to new ideas. The Sadducees were the more conservative ones who did not accept the innovations of resurrection, heaven/hell, angels etc and they were the majority by far. However, only Pharisee Judaism survived the fal of Jerusalem to Rome in 70AD, and all modern Judaism descends from Pharisee Judaism. Wikipedie gives the etymology of Pharisee as deriving from Hebrew 'Parush' (set apart) but I reckon it can just as easily be Pharisee -> Parsi as in Persian.

From Judaism we get Christianity and Islam. But even those religions have their independant borrowings. For instance, when Jesus is born he is visited by three wise men from the East, the Magi. The Magi are Zoroastrian priests. This is significant as it establishes the pre-eminence of the Magi regarding the prophecy of a coming messiah. Islam also has its fair share of borrowings, for instance the five daily prayers with timings and names for them are very much Zoroastrian.

For sure, Islam and Christianity look more like Zoroastrianism than the 'Judaism' of Abraham and Moses.

However, these are very much corrupted forms as the Middle Eastern cultures had not (it seems) developed the same type of high values created by the Aryans further East. This explains some of the differences such as a lack of regard for nature (Zoroastrians take great care not to pollute the Earth) and reliance on using fear rather than reason in getting the message across.

Zoroastrianism itself is an innovation on Vedic (the ancient religion of Pakistan/Northern India) and the two are extremely similar in concepts, language and rituals. It arose during hostilities between the North Indians and their neighbours the Iranians further North and West. The Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrians, is a written in a language so similar to Vedic Sanksrit that they are considered mutually intelligible and more akin to dialects. Vedic Pagans prayed at sunrise, noon, and sunset, the Zoroasatrians added two more, and so we get the 5 daily prayers of Islam.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Some links:
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/secrets_of_zoroastrianism.htm
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrianism_influence.htm

Loads more stuff online
- billy
- Pub Regular
- Tripitaka ~ Closet Juice
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #1 - July 24, 2014, 07:26 PM

Tom Holland talks about this in his book Shadow of the Sword.

Very interesting stuff.

"we can smell traitors and country haters"

Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
God is Love.
Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #2 - July 24, 2014, 07:45 PM

Definitely a lot of interesting connections and influences, but I think you (1) downplay the differences; and (2) don't take into account that Zoroastrianism was a very complex set of religious beliefs that likewise formed over thousands of years under the influence of neighboring cultures and religions, not a complete religion that sprung forth fully formed from a prophet.

For example, the intense dualism of Zoroastrianism was never a perfect sell for the Abrahamic religions ... they incorporated devils and Satan to a large degree, but always in a much more minor role than a true dualism. Why? Because of their emphasis on strict monotheism.

And almost everybody in the Middle East believed in an afterlife, with 'judgment of the dead' being a common theme going back many thousands of years. Similarly, the Zoroastrian conception of a divine savior seems to have evolved very late, likely under Christian/Islamic influence. In the Avestas, it just refers to the prophet. It's only around the 9th/10th centuries that it starts clearly referring to a divine savior to come.

You are right that many Islamic practices were borrowed directly from the Persians. Praying 5 times a day (contrary to the 3 times specified in the Qur'an) is one of the most obvious examples. I'd also point out that the Islamic word for religion, "din", was probably either derived from the Zoroastrian term "daena" (meaning religion/law) or interpreted under its influence.

So ultimately I think it's less about one creating the other, and more like a continual spectrum of influence going back and forth over thousands of years in complicated ways. No doubt in my mind that the significance and extent of that influence is hugely underplayed by most of the religions in question, which are bent on de-emphasizing their roots in historical influence.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #3 - July 24, 2014, 08:23 PM

To be honest I'm really not an expert on Zoroastrianism so probably missed some of the finer points. However

"but I think you (1) downplay the differences; and (2) don't take into account that Zoroastrianism was a very complex set of religious beliefs that likewise formed over thousands of years under the influence of neighboring cultures and religions, not a complete religion that sprung forth fully formed from a prophet."

(1) Not trying to downplay the differences but was I mostly trying to get the main story across
(2) For sure there are changes from Gathic Avestan to Zend and what came later. However, the main parts of the religion were created by a Zoroaster at a specific point in time and are not really continuous developments. They are dualistic/monotheistic innovations from something extremely similar to Vedic. The religion as created far to the east of the Middle East and only a fraction of them moved westward.

For example, the intense dualism of Zoroastrianism was never a perfect sell for the Abrahamic religions ... they incorporated devils and Satan to a large degree, but always in a much more minor role than a true dualism. Why? Because of their emphasis on strict monotheism.

Yes, this is response I frequently see. It is correct but only a minor alteration, making Satan subordinate to God.

"And almost everybody in the Middle East believed in an afterlife, with 'judgment of the dead' being a common theme going back many thousands of years."

Where? And did they also believe in Heaven and Hell? If not then how were they rewarded/punished post judgement.

Similarly, the Zoroastrian conception of a divine savior seems to have evolved very late, likely under Christian/Islamic influence.

This doesnt make sense. In my post I wrote

" For instance, when Jesus is born he is visited by three wise men from the East, the Magi. The Magi are Zoroastrian priests. This is significant as it establishes the pre-eminence of the Magi [from a Christian persective] regarding the prophecy of a coming messiah"

Why would the Christians use the magi to give Christ legitimacy, if the Magi borrowed the Messiah myth from the Christians?

So ultimately I think it's less about one creating the other, and more like a continual spectrum of influence going back and forth over thousands of years in complicated ways

Only minor influence came into Zoroastrianism from the Middle East. Show examples if you can.

I only accept your point that the Abrahamic religions subordinated Satan somewhat.

The theory of Zoroastrian influence is generally not given the due respect due to the historical positions of Islam and Christianity, each playing up their connection to Judaism and down-playing their connection to Zoroastrianism.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #4 - July 24, 2014, 09:33 PM

The default belief in Ancient Mesopotamia was in an afterlife, though not one with a judgment so much as everybody goes there. This belief can be found expressed in almost all the ancient Mesopotamian texts, going back thousands of years. It's the Mesopotamian 'bland and monistic' afterlife that you find in early Judaism and in Ancient Greece as well; it was basically the default world view of the entire region, but notably NOT the view held by the ancient Aryans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mesopotamian_religion#Morality.2C_virtue_and_sin

With later Judaism and Christianity, the theme of heaven v. hell by divine judgment after death comes in, and this likely does reflect the influence of Zoroastrianism in my view -- a MORALIZED afterlife based on divine judgment. On the other hand, it wasn't particularly novel either. The Egyptians believed in an afterlife with judgment of the dead thousands of years before as well.

"During the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period (c. 2181–2055 BC), the Egyptians gradually came to believe that possession of a ba and the possibility of a paradisiacal afterlife extended to everyone.[37][42] In the fully developed afterlife beliefs of the New Kingdom, the soul had to avoid a variety of supernatural dangers in the Duat, before undergoing a final judgment known as the "Weighing of the Heart". In this judgment, the gods compared the actions of the deceased while alive (symbolized by the heart) to Ma'at, to determine whether he or she had behaved in accordance with Ma'at. If the deceased was judged worthy, his or her ka and ba were united into an akh.[43] Several beliefs coexisted about the akh's destination. Often the dead were said to dwell in the realm of Osiris, a lush and pleasant land in the underworld.[44] The solar vision of the afterlife, in which the deceased soul traveled with Ra on his daily journey, was still primarily associated with royalty, but could extend to other people as well. Over the course of the Middle and New Kingdoms, the notion that the akh could also travel in the world of the living, and to some degree magically affect events there, became increasingly prevalent"

Similarly, when it comes to belief in a divine savior, there is virtually nothing in the Gathas that seems to allude to this.

As for the magi, the magi are mentioned in only one of the four gospels, and there only as "wise men of the East" who "saw a star" and came to worship "the King of the Jews." They seem to be invoked more as a form of *astrological* confirmation of Jesus's divine status as the King of the Jews, astrology being particularly associated with the East (in fact, it originated in Mesopotamia, where the Persians picked it up only later, and from there it spread Westward). Messianism among Jews was, at that time, largely conceived as a political future King saving the nation of Israel, not a cosmic messiah who would end world history. The idea of a coming future messiah, on the other hand, does not appear to have been highly developed in Zoroastrianism itself until many centuries later.

While I agree not enough attention is generally paid to Zoroastrianism, likewise not nearly enough attention is generally paid to the influence of the TRULY ancient cultures in the region, Egypt and Mesopotamia. All of the later religions in the region, including Zoroastrianism, came into an area where these beliefs and ideas had percolated for thousands of years already. There were innumerable different religions, cults, and changes over time in all of these religions, constantly influencing each other, and I think the biggest problem is that people try to artificially isolate them from each other. It is not a matter of one religion creating another, because all of these religions evolved radically over long periods --- they only CLAIMED to have arisen full-formed.

I would definitely agree that all of the Abrahamic religions have vastly underemphasized how much they derived from their surrounding religious cultures, including Zoroastrianism, rather than 'revelation' received by prophets. Similarly they underemphasize how much of their religion is based on material social concerns, particularly political concerns. All religions do this. It's pretty much their essence to pretend that they come from a 'divine' source that cannot be explained, rather than a contingent historical and material source.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #5 - July 24, 2014, 10:42 PM

I agree that

1. Abrahamic faiths adapted the status of Satan
2. Its possible that the divine messiah idea came into Zoroastrianism later.

That the Egyptians believed in an afterlife is not really relevant. Im not saying these beliefs didn't exist. But if you compare the beliefs of Zoroastrians, the abrahamics and Egyptians, the Egyptians are clearly outliers while the other two are closely related, if not the same.

I'm not sure if astrology originated in the Middle East. The Persians who , as you say, were known for their astrology, actually looked further east for the greater expertise. In the Shahnama it states that when great astrologers were needed, they were called from Kabul and Kashmir.

I disagree that there is any significant influence into Zoroastrianism from the middle east or anywhere after Zoroasters time. It is very much an aryan religion. Also, the Persians were rulers so less likely to be subverted and more likely to influence their subjects.

My post still stands but with minor corrections 1 and 2. I am.open to examples of influence other than 2 but they should have solid evidence.

I forgot to add to my initial post that Cyrus is considered a 'messiah' and 'shephard' of Yahweh in the torah. The only non-new given these titles as far as im aware. I dont think the pharoah is regarded in the same light
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #6 - July 24, 2014, 11:17 PM

If you look at vedic and avestan culture, it really is not that similar to Abrahamic religion. There's no afterlife. There's no final judgment. There's no monotheism. It's a sacrificial polytheistic religion.

It's not until the Indo-Europeans head out into the fertile crescent and run into the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations that you start to seek uniquely Zoroastrian ideas emerge. What to me is uniquely Zoroastrian in the Gathas are the division of the world into "truth" and "lie", and an emphasis on individual moral agency, good and evil. This is why Nietzche wrote "Thus Spake Zarathustra" -- according to Nietzsche, since Zoroaster was the first to make the error of dividing reality into good and evil, he should also be the first to recant it.

Later forms of Zoroastrianism are so thoroughly embedded in a Mid-Eastern matrix that it all kind of evolves together.

As far as astrology, in the form we know it it came from a mixture of Babylonian and Egyptian astrology. In Antiquity, it was associated almost entirely with "Chaldeans," meaning Babylonians. The Zodiac, for example, is all ancient Semitic stuff. A few Wiki links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_astrology

Indian astrology was largely a derivation of Hellenistic astrology (and in many respects an improvement on it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology

My broader point is that the ancient world was a furious mixture of ideas and influences. I definitely agree with you about the critical importance of Zoroastrianism and Persian influence on the Abrahamic religions, including Islam. I just think that Zoroastrianism was in turn very much the product of other influences going back and forth; it was just as much the result of external influence as these other religions were.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #7 - July 24, 2014, 11:37 PM

By the way, though the vast majority of the Qur'an's religious vocabulary derives from Syriac, the one major term that derives from Persian is very interesting -- "firdaus", from which we in turn get the English word "paradise." This is indicative, to my mind, of the Persian influence on ideas of a wonderful heaven for the saved ones, as opposed to the lousy afterlife for almost everyone that was the normal belief throughout the Ancient world.
- Jedi
- Director of Shariah Police
- Ex-Muslim
- Observe HAYYA at all times
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #8 - July 24, 2014, 11:49 PM

In urdu we pray for 'firdaus' e.g. 'Allah ta'ala mujhe firdaus farmai' - Urdu which is a mish-mash of Farsi, HIndi and Arabic.

No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
- David
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #9 - July 25, 2014, 01:35 AM

Fascinating stuff as ever, Zaotar. Thank you.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #10 - July 25, 2014, 01:45 AM

I think it derives from Persian paradeyza meaning enclosed garden. Hence paradise. With the p->f shift you can ferdaus I suppose
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #11 - July 25, 2014, 01:52 AM

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #12 - July 25, 2014, 10:10 AM

Zaotar I enjoy discussing this with you but it would really help if you can provide some links to back up your claims. So far the only links are for Astrology and I dont think they prove anything as I will explain below.

I have to say I strongly disagree with alot of what you say

Quote from: Zaotar on July 24, 2014, 11:17 PM
If you look at vedic and avestan culture, it really is not that similar to Abrahamic religion. There's no afterlife. There's no final judgment. There's no monotheism. It's a sacrificial polytheistic religion.

Vedic and Avestan are quite different beliefs. Were talking here about Avestan, which clearly does have a Judgement, and afterlife, Monotheism, and is certainly not a sacrificial polytheistic religion.

Quote from: Zaotar on July 24, 2014, 11:17 PM
It's not until the Indo-Europeans head out into the fertile crescent and run into the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations that you start to seek uniquely Zoroastrian ideas emerge.

It's possible those ideas already existed in the Zoroastrian community but were not written down in the earlier texts. To make a case you can show how certain ideas did not exist earlier and how they were borrowed from older similar ideas in the middle east.

Quote from: Zaotar on July 24, 2014, 11:17 PM
Later forms of Zoroastrianism are so thoroughly embedded in a Mid-Eastern matrix that it all kind of evolves together.

Any examples of this co-evolution?

Indian Astrology predates Greek influence.

"To all that noble house. The astrologers
And men of science - chosen cavaliers
Both from Kabul and from Kashmir, alike
The worshippers of God and of the Fire -
Went with their Ruman tables in their hands,
"
The above an excerpt from the Shahnama talks about the time of Rustam. which predates Greek influence, where the Persians respected expertise from the east.

Quote from: Zaotar on July 24, 2014, 11:17 PM
I just think that Zoroastrianism was in turn very much the product of other influences going back and forth; it was just as much the result of external influence as these other religions were.

Fine, but you think that based on what?

I understand your opinion, but you need present some facts and a good argument in favour of it.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #13 - July 25, 2014, 05:33 PM

You can follow the evolution of Zoroastrian thought by looking at its antecedents in Indo-European religion. By the way, my posting name "Zaotar" is the name of the Avestan sacrificial priests; Zarathustra himself calls himself a "zaotar", meaning invoker. Its exact equivalent in Vedic religion is the "haotar" or "hotr" who presides over the soma sacrifice and recites the Rg Veda hymns. So as you can see, I am a big Zoroastrianism buff.

What you see with Persian religion is a fascinating slow divergence from Vedic religion; both started out as a common Indo-European religion and then over thousands of years they diverged from each other (just as their languages diverged over the same period). Characteristically, Persian religion changed as it encountered Mesopotamian culture while Indian religion changed as it encountered the cultures of the Indian subcontinent. One of the most fascinating examples of this divergence is how "devas" became the "good gods" in India, while "asuras" became the devils. In Persia, the pantheon was divided up exactly the opposite way: devas became devils (where we get the name) while asuras (ahura in Persian) became the good guy, Ahura Mazda becoming the perfectly good god for Zoroaster.

So when we talk about Zoroastrianism, we are really talking about a religion that emerged over thousands of years in different forms, just like Hinduism in turn emerged from the same Indo-Iranian base. What that base was is an infinitely fascinating subject that I can't possible cover here, but here's a basic Wiki discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

After the Indo-Europeans encountered Mesopotamian culture when they drove into Persia, what you see is a reaction against the sacrificial nomadic religion that they shared with the Vedic cultures, and the slow emergence of a religion that is much more similar to the Mesopotamian cultures.

As far as the roots of astrology, there are Babylonian texts going back thousands of years, with detailed astrology and zodiac signs. Even the zodiac signs are of creatures which have thousands of years of detailed history in Mesopotamian records (even wonder what, exactly, Capricorn or Sagittarius are anyways? Hybrid Mesopotamian creatures, which we have records of going all the way back to the Sumerians, 5000 years ago (!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_%28astrology%29

"The Encyclopedia Britannica states that the figure of Capricorn derives from the half-goat, half-fish representation of the Sumerian god Enki."

We likewise have detailed records of all the astrological mathematics and their development. All of this at a time when the Indo-Europeans had nothing similar, and had not even entered the Indo-Iranian region yet! The Shahnameh was written *thousands* of years after the early Babylonian astrological records (it was composed around 1000 AD -- approximately 4000 years after the Sumerian records), and cannot be taken as a historical record of astrology's development; astrology was already incredibly ancient by that time.

By the way, Zoraster's Gathas share one key characteristic with the Qur'an: Much of these texts are virtually incomprehensible, and we still lack the linguistic resources to adequately decipher its meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathas

"Sassanid era translations and commentaries (the Zend) have been used to interpret the Gathas, but by the 3rd century the Avestan language was virtually extinct, and a dependency on the medieval texts is often discouraged as the commentaries are frequently conjectural."

Zoroastrian religion later *imposed* an understanding on the text, just as Islam did with the Qur'an, but most modern scholars think our ability to understand what any of the Gathas mean is incredibly limited. So when people talk about Zoroastrianism, they are not really talking about an "ancient revelation" so much as a gigantic tradition of complex religious history, just as Islam is not really about the "Qur'anic revelation" so much as a gigantic tradition of complex religious history that is read into the baffling texts called the Qur'an. Just as the medieval Zoroastrian texts interpreting the Gathas are defective (the writers of that era no longer knew how to read the texts properly, and they interpreted all kinds of later historical and linguistic fictions into them), so the medieval Islamic texts interpreting the Qur'an no longer understood much of its language, structure, compilation, and references, and in that gap interjected salvation history and speculation that slowly fossilized into Islamic orthodoxy.

It is the task of critical scholarship to peel away these historical developments and try to find out how things originally were, and how they changed over time. I can't possibly agree more about the world historical significance of Zoroastrianism, just as I believe Islam is incredibly significant, but at the same time you cannot take either religion's traditional accounts of their history ("divine revelation, fully formed") at their word.
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #14 - July 25, 2014, 05:48 PM

So like the difference between Christianity as per the Bible and Christianity as per the Tradition?
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #15 - July 25, 2014, 06:42 PM

Sort of like the difference between the Old Testament as it was written and the Old Testament as interpreted later by Christians through the lens of Christianity and garbled translations. Except that the Zoroastrian scriptures were compiled in a process so complex that it boggles the mind, with linguistic problems that are much worse than those the Bible usually presents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta

"Young Avesta's area of composition comprised - at least - Sīstān/Arachosia, Herat, Merv and Bactria.[2] It went through the following stages:[3]

The original language of the composers of grammatically correct YAv. texts; perhaps in Merv or Herat;
Dialect influences as a result of the transfer of the Av. texts to Southeast Iran (Arachosia?);
Transfer of the Avesta to Persis in Southwest Iran, possibly earlier than 500 B.C.;
Transmission of the Avesta in a Southwest Iranian theological school, probably in Estakhr: Old Pers. and Mid. Pers. influences, the insistence on fantastic pronunciations by semi-learned schoolmasters (Av. aēθrapaiti-), the composition of ungrammatical late Av. texts, the adaptation of portions of texts taken from other regions where they were recited;
The end of the oral transmission: phonetic notation of the Avestan texts in the Sasanian archetype, probably in the fourth century A.D.;
Post-Sasanian deterioration of the written transmission due to incorrect pronunciation (Vulgate);
In the ninth and tenth centuries A.D. the manuscript copies of individual texts were made on which the extant manuscripts are based;
Earlier manuscripts were copied in manuscripts dating from A.D. 1288 till the nineteenth century by scribes who introduced errors and corruptions. These are the manuscripts extant today."

Can you imagine?

The Qur'an was compiled in a somewhat similar convoluted fashion, but to a less extreme degree and over a much shorter period of time. Even though the Qur'an presents monumental problems of analysis and much of it is unintelligible, it still is not as bad as the Avestas.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #16 - July 25, 2014, 06:53 PM

Quote from: Zaotar on July 25, 2014, 06:42 PM
..................................

The Qur'an was compiled in a somewhat similar convoluted fashion, but to a less extreme degree and over a much shorter period of time. Even though the Qur'an presents monumental problems of analysis and much of it is unintelligible, it still is not as bad as the Avestas.

Curious here dear Zaotar., did you read those Zend Avesta manuscripts in Avestan language or persian language or in English?

well those are literally 1000 years older than Quran.. So it may look like unintelligible. After all they are stories told in rhyming words/songs..

http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #17 - July 25, 2014, 07:12 PM

In English of course, it would be impossible to 'read' them in Avestan unless you were a professional scholar specialized in Avestan! Also because they have gone through so much distortion and translation, to 'read' them in Avestan (young and old) you really need to know how scholars interpret the terminology, and that is based on incredibly difficult and complicated philological analysis that includes a deep understanding of their Vedic equivalents, as well as the distorted medieval Zoroastrian commentary and texts.

On a side note, the Avestan texts are some of the weirdest religious texts in existence. One of the weirdest things is how they are always going on and on about 'water dogs' and 'prickly dogs'. It is the strangest thing ever.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0419.htm
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #18 - July 25, 2014, 08:05 PM

Been reading the dialogue here. Thanks for the links and other information.
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #19 - July 25, 2014, 08:22 PM

Quote from: Zaotar on July 25, 2014, 06:42 PM
Sort of like the difference between the Old Testament as it was written and the Old Testament as interpreted later by Christians through the lens of Christianity and garbled translations. Except that the Zoroastrian scriptures were compiled in a process so complex that it boggles the mind, with linguistic problems that are much worse than those the Bible usually presents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta

"Young Avesta's area of composition comprised - at least - Sīstān/Arachosia, Herat, Merv and Bactria.[2] It went through the following stages:[3]

The original language of the composers of grammatically correct YAv. texts; perhaps in Merv or Herat;
Dialect influences as a result of the transfer of the Av. texts to Southeast Iran (Arachosia?);
Transfer of the Avesta to Persis in Southwest Iran, possibly earlier than 500 B.C.;
Transmission of the Avesta in a Southwest Iranian theological school, probably in Estakhr: Old Pers. and Mid. Pers. influences, the insistence on fantastic pronunciations by semi-learned schoolmasters (Av. aēθrapaiti-), the composition of ungrammatical late Av. texts, the adaptation of portions of texts taken from other regions where they were recited;
The end of the oral transmission: phonetic notation of the Avestan texts in the Sasanian archetype, probably in the fourth century A.D.;
Post-Sasanian deterioration of the written transmission due to incorrect pronunciation (Vulgate);
In the ninth and tenth centuries A.D. the manuscript copies of individual texts were made on which the extant manuscripts are based;
Earlier manuscripts were copied in manuscripts dating from A.D. 1288 till the nineteenth century by scribes who introduced errors and corruptions. These are the manuscripts extant today."

Can you imagine?

The Qur'an was compiled in a somewhat similar convoluted fashion, but to a less extreme degree and over a much shorter period of time. Even though the Qur'an presents monumental problems of analysis and much of it is unintelligible, it still is not as bad as the Avestas.

Interesting.
- Naz
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #20 - July 25, 2014, 10:05 PM

This is really interesting stuff. I've never really given much interest to religion in general, but, I have to admit viewing it from an academic perspective is quite fascinating.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God." - Epicurus
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #21 - July 26, 2014, 12:29 AM

Zoatar,

For the record there is very little evidence for placing Pro-Indo-European outside of Ancient Saptasindu (modern Punjab and surrounding areas). Most of the early scholarship was heavily skewed due to a racial bias hence we get Germans calling themselves Aryans even that is specifically an identifier for Indo-Iranians.

This is why Vedic religion and language are closest to what scholars refer to as Proto-Indo-European

See this video by the Greek academic Kazanas
http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=3JYs2xRVzQ8

"After the Indo-Europeans encountered Mesopotamian culture when they drove into Persia, what you see is a reaction against the sacrificial nomadic religion that they shared with the Vedic cultures, and the slow emergence of a religion that is much more similar to the Mesopotamian cultures."

This is not correct. Sacrifice was left behind with Zarathustras reforms and he lived around the Bactria Margiana area. This was well-before the Iranians moved out of the traditional Aryan lands.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm

You haven't provides anything to back your claims that Zorastrianism was significantly influenced by the Middle East. We need some examples.

Shahnama was compiled late but many of the stories go back way earlier and clearly before the rise of Media and the Achemenid Emlre around 700bc

Greek/ME Astrology may have influenced Indian astrology, but it by no means created it.

People (usually with abrahamic POV) who critisize the antiquity and influence of the Zoroastrian religion always talk about late texts and the different layers. Yet they, like yourself fail to show any examples of real and substantial change.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #22 - July 26, 2014, 01:12 AM

Quote from: Zaotar on July 25, 2014, 07:12 PM
............................ On a side note, the Avestan texts are some of the weirdest religious texts in existence. One of the ~~weirdest things~~ is how they are always going on and on about 'water dogs' and 'prickly dogs'. It is the strangest thing ever.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0419.htm

well writing dogs or gods ..land dogs.. water dogs.. ((I guess water dogs they mean turtles )) is not weirdest thing., I mean Dogs are wonderful domesticated animals Often they are more friendly and more godly than gods of human brain or even human beings.. So some culture some 1000s of years writes good things about dogs., I would not consider that as weirdest things.. Or may be you are using wrong word there..
Quote
I (1-7). The dog of Ormazd and the dog of Ahriman.

   (a. 1-4). The dog Vanghâpara ('the hedge-hog').

   (b. 4-7). The dog Zairimyangura ('the tortoise').

II (8-16). Offences against the dog.

III (17-19). On the several duties of the dog.

IV (20-28). On the food due to the dog.

V (29-38). On the mad dog; how he is to be kept, and cured.

VI (39-40). On the excellence of the dog.

VII (41-43). On the wolf-dog.

p. 152

VIII (44-48). On the virtues and vices of the dog.

IX (49-50). Praise of the dog.

X (50-54). The water dog.

That is nice., is it not? It is wonderful to tell/help people of that time "how to behave and how to control different dogs" I could easily replace the word dog with man and use same words to explain the behavior of man.. But that Avestan texts have more than those dogs and their behaviors..

The other point I would like to stress here is ., because we are not familiar with language it is good to read multiple mistranslations not just that sacred-texts.com., Off course as starting point that is a good site for many so-called religious texts ., I spent quite bit of time on that site..

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #23 - July 26, 2014, 01:16 AM

Quote from: mubs_352 on July 26, 2014, 12:29 AM
.........................
This is why Vedic religion and language are closest to what scholars refer to as Proto-Indo-European

hello mubs.. never read you at CEMB so greetings and my good wishes to you., So what is this vedic religion? are the text of that vedic religion words of god?? any links for those texts

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #24 - July 26, 2014, 01:22 AM

Those are fairly fringe views Mub. Standard academic views on proto Indo-European fairly strongly reject the "Indo-Iranian" origin belief. It is not considered a mainstream hypothesis; I know there are Indian scholars who argue vehemently for an "out of India" view, but they are considered deeply untenable by most scholars, and in large respect reflect partisan attempts to locate Vedic culture as a uniquely Indian development, rather than a complex cross-cultural development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

In any event, I already gave plenty of links on the history of astrology, and it is a very well documented field -- you can go read it for yourself if you like. There's no way to disentangle astrology from its origins in Babylonian/Egyptian mathematics and Babylonian astrology. Trying to postulate an independent Indian origin doesn't work, historically, because there are far too many detailed ancient records and because the mathematics and imagery in astrology are attested so early, so extensively, and are so distinctively specific to the Babylonian and Egyptian traditions. Shahnameh is a completely useless source for contesting astrology's development 3,000 years earlier, as attested in Akkadian and Sumerian records, thousands of years before the Persians first even learned to *write*. Incidentally, when Persians did write, they wrote ... by borrowing Middle Eastern scripts, Pahlavi (an Aramaic derivative!) most notably.

As far as the different time layers in the Avestas, these are no more in serious scholarly dispute than the different layers in the Vedas. They use radically different language, and different concepts. Not only are the earlier layers not particularly Abrahamic, even the later Avestan layers bear little resemblance to Abrahamic religions -- take the Yashts, composed between 559 and 330 BC, which is VERY late. The Yashts are still going on and on about polytheistic gods.

And as far as Zoroastrianism borrowing from the Middle East, even if you START with the best known symbol of Zoroastrianism, the faravahar, it is a borrowing of older Middle Eastern and Egyptian symbols, not an "Aryan" belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faravahar

"The winged disc has a long history in the art and culture of the ancient Near and Middle East. Historically, the symbol is influenced by the "winged sun" hieroglyph appearing on Bronze Age royal seals (Luwian SOL SUUS, symbolizing royal power in particular). In Neo-Assyrian times, a human bust is added to the disk, the "feather-robed archer" interpreted as symbolizing Ashur."

"While the symbol is currently thought to represent a Fravashi (approximately a guardian angel) and from which it derives its name (see below), what it represented in the minds of those who adapted it from earlier Mesopotamian and Egyptian reliefs is unclear. Because the symbol first appears on royal inscriptions, it is also thought to represent the 'Divine Royal Glory' (Khvarenah), or the Fravashi of the king, or represented the divine mandate that was the foundation of a king's authority."

You could go on for years with the borrowings back and forth, as well as the late developments. Again, Wiki explains all this in great detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#History

"Achaemenid era (648–330 BCE) Zoroastrianism developed the abstract concepts of heaven and hell, as well as personal and final judgment, all of which are only alluded to in the Gathas. Yasna 19, which has only survived in a Sassanid era ([–650 CE] Zend commentary on the Ahuna Vairya invocation), prescribes a Path to Judgment known as the Chinvat Peretum or Chinvat bridge (cf: As-Sirāt in Islam), which all souls had to cross, and judgment (over thoughts, words, and deeds performed during a lifetime) was passed as they were doing so. However, the Zoroastrian personal judgment is not final. At the end of time, when evil is finally defeated, all souls will be ultimately reunited with their Fravashi. Thus, Zoroastrianism can be said to be a universalist religion with respect to salvation.

In addition, and strongly influenced by Babylonian and Akkadian practices, the Achaemenids popularized shrines and temples, hitherto alien forms of worship. In the wake of Achaemenid expansion, shrines were constructed throughout the empire and particularly influenced the role of Mithra, Aredvi Sura Anahita, Verethregna and Tishtrya, all of which, in addition to their original (proto-)Indo-Iranian functions, now also received Perso-Babylonian functions."

As to sacrifice in Zoroastrianism, a complex topic, I refer you to the Encylopedia Iranica:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sacrifice-i

Again, my overall point is NOT that Zoroastrianism was not influential on the Abrahamic religions -- it was -- but that the whole idea of a "pure source" that other religions are "derivative" of is historically nonsense. What we see in history is intensive cross-pollination and mixing, with religions developing over long periods of time, not bursting forth full-formed. That idea is as erroneous for Zoroastrianism as it is for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #25 - July 26, 2014, 01:32 AM

Also, the deva asura split was not a natural development but actually due to Zoroasters reform. He specifically characterised the devas as 'false gods' who had been led astray by the Lie (druz). Prior to this deva worship was common in the (ancient) Iranian lands (16 perfect lands of ahura Mazda) and we can see in the gathas how Zoroaster and the Kayani kings 'cleansed' the population of deva worship.

It would seem Zoroasters reforms could have been largely motivated by a need to protect the Iranian dominion from (possibly volatile) Indic religious and cultural influence. Monotheism results in very stable and well-defined centralized religion and culture which is much more able go resist foreign influence. This would explain his demonization of the deva pantheon (to purge once and for all Iran from Indic influence)

From the gathas we can see that Iran was ruled by a number of small kingdoms without any central authority. In later times we see large empires such as the Medes and Acheamenids. I believe the Zoroastrian religion is singly the biggest factor in this development, as it created a more stable and uniform Iranian culture.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #26 - July 26, 2014, 10:16 AM

Quote from: Zaotar on July 26, 2014, 01:22 AM
Again, my overall point is NOT that Zoroastrianism was not influential on the Abrahamic religions -- it was -- but that the whole idea of a "pure source" that other religions are "derivative" of is historically nonsense. What we see in history is intensive cross-pollination and mixing, with religions developing over long periods of time, not bursting forth full-formed. That idea is as erroneous for Zoroastrianism as it is for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.

I think the idea of a pure source is more theology than anything else. Abrahamic religions have always had this concept even in Genesis. Many of the Demon Princes are later incorporation of foreign religions as an enemy or demon-inspired religion. Baal for example has roots as far back as the Hyksos invasion of Egypt which was assimilated into Caaanite culture. Further development in proto-Philistines and proto-Phoenicians relgions from a baseline Canaanite peoples. Even in Judaism the word transformed from a title to a name of God to an external enemy to a demon and so on.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #27 - July 26, 2014, 10:31 AM

Quote from: mubs_352 on July 26, 2014, 01:32 AM
From the gathas we can see that Iran was ruled by a number of small kingdoms without any central authority. In later times we see large empires such as the Medes and Acheamenids. I believe the Zoroastrian religion is singly the biggest factor in this development, as it created a more stable and uniform Iranian culture.

The typical model is religions are defined after the period of unification not before. It is religious narratives which imply a proto-unification in order to establish credibility. It has happened in every culture. It happened in the early south and north kingdom periods of Egypt. Military and political unification followed by cultural assimilation and adaption. It happened with the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Sumerians, etc. More religious narrative or memo-narrative then anything else.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #28 - July 26, 2014, 03:12 PM

Quote from: yeezevee on July 26, 2014, 01:16 AM
hello mubs.. never read you at CEMB so greetings and my good wishes to you., So what is this vedic religion? are the text of that vedic religion words of god?? any links for those texts

Thanks, I am new to the forum.

The Vedic religion is what produced the hymns of the Rigveda. The Rigveda is the first and oldest of the four vedas.. The religion alluded to is very different to any form of modern Hinduism. Modern Hindus consider the text to be 'revelations' but the texts themselves describe them as being composed by sages of the time.

The region mentioned in the Rigveda seems to span from Eastern Afganistan to Haryana and south into Gujarat. Mostly modern Pakistan and nearyby areas in India and Afganistan (SaptaSindhu or The Seven Rivers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vedic_religion

Apparantly Rta is the central concept in the Rigveda and seems to pervade all thought and provide the Gods with their power. Words such as Ritual, Righteous, Art seem to be closely related and likely are cognates from the PIE period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9Ata

I think the best way to understand the 'religion' is to read through some of the hymns.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm

Some of my favourites:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10072.htm (The Gods)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08089.htm (Indra, Speech)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01032.htm (Indra)
http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/faith-and-rituals/were-vedic-rishis-mere-poets-jnana-suktam-from-rigveda (Speech)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10018.htm (Funeral)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07066.htm (Mitra-Varuna)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01113.htm (Dawn)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07076.htm (Dawn)

To be honest I dont think this wuold be enough to really explain the Vedic thought (you would need to figure out a lot) but dont think I can explain more here without opening a new thread. There is also the relationship with other branches of IE that would require some time to go through.
- mubs_352
- Member
- offline
Abrahamic Religions' debt to Zoroastrianism
Reply #29 - July 26, 2014, 04:33 PM

Regarding Astronomy, I am no expert but had a quick look around the web.

From your wiki link on Hindu Astrology

"The foundation of Hindu astrology is the notion of bandhu of the Vedas.... Practice relies primarily on the sidereal zodiac, which is different from the tropical zodiac used in Western (Hellenistic) astrology.....The first evidence of the introduction of Greek astrology to India is the Yavanajātaka which dates to the early centuries CE"

From your link on Babylonian Astrology

"The second limitation was that the astronomical knowledge presupposed and accompanying early Babylonian astrology was, [b]though essentially of an empirical character, limited and flawed[/b]. The theory of the ecliptic ...does not appear to have been perfected until after the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 B.C.

Similarly, the other accomplishments of Babylonian astronomers, belong to this late period, so that the golden age of Babylonian astronomy belongs not to the remote past, as was until recently supposed, but to the Seleucid period; i.e. after the advent of the Greeks in the Euphrates Valley.

.. the defectiveness of early Babylonian astronomy may be gathered from the fact that as late as the 6th century BC an error of almost an entire month was made by the Babylonian astronomers in the attempt to determine through calculation the beginning of a certain year.

The third limitation was that there is little evidence that the signs of the zodiac that we now recognise, were used in Babylonian astronomy prior to 700 BC."

Now regarding Vedic Mathematics and Astronomy, I am no expert in the field but (I am deliberately avoiding Indian commenters as I cannot really verify these statements and do not wish to include those more susceptible to bias)

Seidenberg, who wrote The History of Mathematics,

"... the elements of ancient geometry found in Egypt and old Babylonia stem from a ritual system of the kind found in the Sulba-sutras."

“Arithmetic equations from the Sulbatras were used in the observation of the triangle by the Babylonians and the theory of contraries and of inexactitude in arithmetic methods, discovered by Hindus, inspired Pythagorean mathematics”

French astronomer Jean-Claude Bailly

“the Hindu astronomic systems were much more ancient than those of the Greeks or even the Egyptians and the movement of stars which was calculated by the Hindus 4500 years ago, does not differ from those used today by even one minute”

Carl Sagan stated, "Vedic Cosmology is the only one in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology."

Nobel laureate Count Maurice Maeterlinck wrote of: "a Cosmogony which no European conception has ever surpassed."

European bias against the early achievements of the Aryans is due to their Christian traditions, which places the ME at the root of Civilization. Max Muller, the propounder of the Aryan Invasion theory (the basis of what you refer to as 'mainstream academics') states

“India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports"

“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.
12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »