ON THE DATE OF AVESTA, AND THE ZOROASTRIAN-BORROWING HYPOTHESIS;
Or, Letting Skeptics Have A Taste Of Their Own Medicine
By "Antero"
One of the reasons I have become convinced of the superiority of Christian
faith is that more I have studied the holy writings of other religions, the
more I have seen how completely they would collapse if they were subjected to
even a FRACTION of the kind of scholarly criticism that Bible has been showered
with. The Book of the Books has been taking in, for two centuries, the worst
that secular scholarship has had to offer while the books of other religions
have gotten off relatively lightly. This is probably due to the unspoken fact
that most unbelievers see only Christianity as a serious intellectual opponent
among religions - others are simply not seen as even worth the
effort.
That, and the on-going debate between JP Holding and Richard Carrier in here,
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nwjcarr3.html
has inspired me to put down this piece, "ad majorem Dei gloriam."
One of the most popular skeptical ideas is the theory that the Pentateuch is
mostly or completely a post-exilic forgery. According to them, its real author
was not Moses but rather some anonymous deceitful scribes in the times of king
Josiah and scribe Ezra.
Another idea that skeptics like to confidently push forward is that the
Zoroastrian religion of Persians influenced the religion of Israelites in
various ways, beginning with their Babylonian exile.
Now I intend to make these two Bible-bashing ideas collide. It is an acceptable
Biblical strategy to let your opponents annihilate each other (2 Chronicles
20:23).
My main point in this essay is simply this:
Skeptics, just like you like to lay the burden on believers to prove that this
or that Torah passage is really of Mosaic origin and not some post-exilic
forgery, SO IS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THIS OR THAT AVESTAN PASSAGE IS NOT A
LATE SASSANIAN FORGERY.
I will now show why this is a justifiable attitude - I will give Zoroastrian
sources the same kind of treatment that skeptics ROUTINELY give to Biblical
books. (Actually skeptics are often even much more hyper-critical towards the
Scripture that I will be here on Avesta)
1. THE ACHAEMENIAN ERA
First I will establish the fact that there is a great vacuum of ignorance right
in the beginning of Persian sources on Zoroastrianism - it has been said that
the Achaemenid inscriptions do not know the Avesta, and the Avesta does not
know the Achaemenid dynasty.
As Martin Schwartz admits (p. 666):
"(Avesta) is completely devoid of references to persons, institutions, or
events of Achaemenian times. . The place names mentioned, apart from
mythological geography, are all in Eastern Iran; it is as though
The main reason why some scholars have thought that (at least some parts of)
Avesta are really ancient is an archaic language of such passages. However,
this excuse has not stopped sceptics from late-dating Pentateuch (on the basis
of language ALONE, all of Torah is clearly pre-exilic), so I won't let Avesta
off the hook so easily either.
Quoting Richard Frye, one of the most respected experts on Persian history:
"Certain features of the language of the Gathas and the Younger Avesta as
well are more archaic than corresponding features in Vedic Sanskrit (25), but
this, of course, does not mean that the Gathas are therefore older in time than
the Rig Veda, since as a parallel in Altaic languages, modern Mongolian in many
features is "more archaic" than the oldest Turkish, and Arabic is in
the same relation to Hebrew."
(from "The Heritage of Persia," 1962, p. 28)
Walter Henning agreed:
"On the date there have been, in essence, only two opinions. The
Zoroastrian tradition has preserved a date which would put Zoroaster in the
neighborhood of 600 B.C. Opinion is divided according to whether this
traditional date is accepted as true or rejected.
". Those who reject the date seem to do so not so much because of reasoned
arguments but out: of a vague feeling, the feeling that the Gathas of Zoroaster
are old, old, ever so old as if 600 B.C. were not old enough for almost any
thing! It was due to the same kind of vague feeling that earlier generations of
scholars attributed, the Rig-Veda to the third millennium B.C. - an estimate
that is thoroughly discredited nowadays. Of course, this feeling is not, as a
rule, represented as such, but appears in the guise of specious reasoning. In
the: case of Zoroaster we have to deal chiefly with two pleas one is a
linguistic argument of such extraordinary feebleness that one is amazed at
finding it seriously discussed at all; the other is the hitherto unsuccessful
attempt to set the traditional date aside by showing that it is not a genuinely
transmitted date, but one found by calculation in later times.
"The linguistic argument is this in comparison with the language of the
Old Persian inscriptions the language of the Gathas is far less developed far
closer to hypothetical Old Iranian therefore, the Gathas should be older than
the oldest Old Persian inscriptions by more than a few decades. This argument
would hold good only if the language of the Gathas were the same dialect, at an
earlier stage, as Old Persian; but that is not the case and has never been
claimed. It is notorious that the various dialects of one and the same language
group develop at different speeds and in different directions, so that the
comparison of two dialects can never lead to a relative date. Moreover, in
Iranian the Eastern and Western dialects developed not merely in different but
in opposite directions thus while the word endings disappeared in the West,
they were well maintained in the East. From the point of view of comparative
linguistics the Gathas could have been composed at a date far later than 600
B.C. "
http://www.vohuman.org/Library/Zoroaster%20%E2%80%93%20Politician%20or%20Witch%20Doctor%20(lecture%203%20of%203).htm
The archaic language of Gathas was probably due to the fact that Zoroastrianism
was born in the rustic Eastern Iran, far from the cultural centers of Indus
Valley and Mesopotamia - and also far from the Jewish exiles in Babylon.
Then, what then could be the clearest evidence that Persians could not have
given any Zoroastrian ideas to Jews during their Babylonian exile?
Perhaps the fact that we do not possess any evidence of Cyrus himself being
Zoroastrian. The first concrete proofs of the existence of Mazdaism outside
Avesta itself are in the inscriptions of Darius, who does mention the deity
"Ahura Mazda" - but does NOT mention the name of prophet Zoroaster.
Neither does he make any detailed theological statements (like concerning the
essential Zoroastrian idea of "Amesha Spentas") besides the
simplistic idea of fighting for truth and opposing lie.
The scholars who date Zoroaster in the 6th century BC (like E. Herzfeld and F.
Altheim) actually speculate that Darius' father Vishtaspa/Hystaspes might have
been the first influential convert to Zoroastrianism.
M. Schwartz agrees (p. 684):
"Evidence is lacking for religion under the predecessors of Darius I. It
is well known that Cyrus II "The Great" (559-529 B.C.), as part of
his policy towards the peoples which came under his rule, restored the Temple
at Jerusalem; he also restored the cults of Babylon, neglected by the defeated
Nabonides, and, in a Babylonian description, declared himself a beloved servant
of Marduk. What beliefs and practices were current among Cyrus's people is
unknown."
Herodotus tells us how ordinary Achaemenian Persians buried their dead with
wax, showing how Magian caste with its doctrines had no big (if any) influence
on them. James Darmesteter comments:
"If we pass now from dogma to practice, we find that the most
important practice of the Avesta law was either disregarded by the Achæmenian
kings, or unknown to them. According to the Avesta burying corpses in the earth
is one of the most heinous sins that can be committed; we know that under the
Sassanians a prime minister, Seoses, paid with his life for an infraction of
that law . Corpses were to be laid down on the summits of mountains, there to
be devoured by birds and dogs; the exposure of corpses, was the most striking
practice of Mazdean profession, and its adoption was the sign of conversion.
Now under the Achæmenian rule, not only the burial of the dead was not
forbidden, but it was the general practice. Persians, says Herodotus, bury
their dead in the earth, after having coated them with wax. But Herodotus,
immediately after stating that the Persians inter their dead, adds that the
Magi do not follow the general practice, but lay the corpses down on the
ground, to be devoured by birds. So what became a law for all people, whether
laymen or priests, under the rule of the Sassanians, was only the custom of the
Achæmenians.
"7. There are other features of the Avesta religion which appear to have
been foreign to Persia, but are attributed to the Magi. The hvaêtvôdatha, the
holiness of marriage between next of kin, even to incest, was unknown to Persia
under Cambyses (Herod. III, 31), but it is highly praised in the Avesta, and
was practised under the Sassanians (Agathias II, 31); in the times before the
Sassanians it is mentioned only as a law of the Magi (Diog. Laert. Prooem. 6;
Catullus, Carm. XC).]
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/zoroscripts/venintro_03.htm
Let this be compared to sceptical claims on how ordinary pre-exilic Israelites
had no contact to Yahwist doctrines.
(See Appendix 1 at the end of the essay for more on this subject)
And here is a tidbit that would surely make Christ-mythers jubilant, if
something similar were to he observed in the history of Christianity:
(Russell, pg. 49)
"Zoroaster himself is not mentioned in Achaemenian monuments, nor indeed
is his name to be found in the inscriptions of the Sasanians, who were
undoubtedly Zoroastrians."
There is also a great vacuum in the early Greek historiography concerning
Zoroaster himself. Herodotus knows many details about the Magian caste of
Persia, but he doesn't even hint at the existence of their supreme prophet and
supposed law-giver! Neither does Xenophon mention him in his Cyropeadia or
Anabasis. The earliest mention of Zoroaster in Western sources occurs in a
4th-century BC pseudepigraphic Platonic epistle (Alcibiades I, 122).
Using hyper-critical skeptical standards, this might be used as an evidence
that in the 5th century BC, Magis had not yet adopted Zoroaster and his
prophetic doctrines as their own, acting just merely as a sacrificial priestly
caste in the manner of Indian Brahmins.
2. THE EXCLUSIVE ATTITUDE OF THE MAGIAN CASTE
Making it even more improbable that Israelites might have just
"borrowed" stuff from Magians, even if they had wanted or gotten an
opportunity, Darmesteter points out that Magis actually jealously guarded their
doctrines from outsiders:
"3. Pliny very often confounds Magism and Magia, Magians and Magicians. We
know from Pliny, too, that Tiridates refused to initiate Nero into his art: but
the cause was not, as he assumes, that it was 'a detestable, frivolous, and
vain art,' but because Mazdean law forbids the holy knowledge to be revealed to
laymen, much more to foreigners: (Yast IV, 10; cf. Philostrati Vita Soph. I,
10)."
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/zoroscripts/venintro_03.htm
Albert De Jong points out (p. 409) that "In theory, Zoroastrians are
forbidden to have physical, personal or even commercial contacts with followers
of other faiths."
Describing this practice of hostile secrecy, Greek church father Basil the
Great related in his 258th letter to Epiphanius:
"They have used their own peculiar customs, not intermingling with other
peoples. It is completely impossible to use reason with them, inasmuch as they
have been taken by the devil, according to his will.
"For they have no books among them, nor teachers of religion, but they are
educated in an unreasoning way, receiving the impiety by transmission from
father to son.
"Now apart from these things - these are observed by all - they reject
animal sacrifice as a defilement, (even) slaughtering through the hands of
others the animals they need; they rave after unlawful (incestuous) marriages,
and they consider fire to be god, etc. But sofar, no one of the Magi has told us
any myths about their descent from Abraham; but they claim some Zarnouan
(Zurvan?) as the ancestor of their race. Accordingly, I can write nothing more
to your Honour about them."
If Basil could not get any detailed theology out of them, how could the Jews in
exile have done any better?
Besides, Basil was describing the conditions of Magis ("the nation of the
Magusaeans") in Roman-held Asia Minor, untouched by Sassanian reforms, in
the late 4th century AD, and he certainly seemed to be unaware of the existence
of any written Avesta.
(Let this be compared to sceptical theories that Jews in the Egyptian
Elephantine colony were untouched by JEDP reforms.)
Armenian church father Eznik of Kolb confirms the observations of Basil
(Russell, pg. 531) :
"the fifth-century Armenian writer Eznik of Kolb notes in his Elc alandocc
"Refutation of Sects" that the Zoroastrians do not put their
teachings in writing: Ew kcani end grovkc ccen sovin patren ztxmars "And
since religion is not in writing, sometimes they say that and deceive by it,
and sometimes they say this, and by the same mislead fools." (L. Mariés,
Ch. Mercier, Eznik de Kolb, De Deo, Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 28, Fasc. 3,
Paris, 1959 (Arm. Text), 472 para. 192).
De Jong cites an anecdote that shows how Zoroastrian doctrines were still being
transmitted mainly orally even towards the end of the Sassanian era (pp.
72-73):
"possibly the most illuminating reference to Zoroastrian religious
education has been found in the seventh-century Syriac life of Yeshu-Sabran
(99). He was a former Zoroastrian converted to Christianity, who went in search
of religious instruction. He therefore asked his Christian teachers to recite
ten psalms to him and immediately repeated these texts loudly, while making
strong movements with his head. He was then warned by his teacher not to do
this, but to learn the scripture as the Christians do, by relying on
texts."
Would those certain skeptics that make the equation "oral transmission =
unreliable, flexible, prone to embellishments" when dealing with Gospels
be prepared to do the same in here?
Finally, James Russell notices how even the medieval remnants of Zoroastrians
in Armenia were continuing this practice (pg. 297):
"Iranian and Zoroastrian tradition stressed oral recitation and
memorization rather than written records, particularly in the case of sacred
texts, (57) and medieval records indicate that the Arewordik, a surviving
remnant of the Armenian Zoroastrian community, (58) did indeed transmit
religious learning orally from father to son."
Indeed, these fundamental bias against writing seem to echo still in the
10th-century Persian epic Shahnameh by Ferdowsi (Russell, pg. 289) :
"To a certain extent, the Iranians have always regarded writing as foreign
and even demonic: the Sah-name attributes its invention to the divs."
3. FABLES ABOUT THE HISTORY OF AVESTAN CORPUS
One of the quite uncritically accepted Zoroastrian claims is that Alexander the
Great destroyed most of Avesta and persecuted Zoroastrian priests. This is an
extremely late legend (it appears in a 9th-century AD Pahlavi book Arda Viraz
Namag) that is not supported in the slightest by Western sources that, on the
contrary, describe how Alexander treated Persian culture with such respect that
Greeks got annoyed by it.
As Richard Frye gently notes (The Golden Age of Persia, p. 19):
"The loss of ancient (Zoroastrian) writings is, for the most part, the
result of lack of interest and any desire to preserve them, rather than any
deliberate attempt to destroy or extirpate them. Writings may have perished in
the burning of Persepolis by Alexander, but stories of deliberate destruction
of unique manuscripts must be regarded with scepticism."
Jan Bremmer comments less gently (pg. 50):
"For the influence of Christianity in this period we probably also have
another example. According to several Zoroastrian writings, the Greeks under
Alexander the Great had destroyed not only a precious Achaemenid Avesta codex
but also the other religious books, which had been written in 12,000 ox-hides.
In fact, there is not a trace at all of these writings in the Achaemenid
period, and the tradition seems to have been created in order to explain the
absence of a Persian holy book in contrast to those of the Jews, Christians and
Manichaeans. This lack of written religious tradition seems to have been first
seriously felt precisely in the same period in which resurrection became an
issue (61)."
Bible-bashing skeptics, however, usually accept this legend rather gullibly,
for it is one of the few, shaky proofs for the early date of Avesta and its
advanced doctrines, and thus for the hypothesis of OT-Zoroastrian borrowing.
Thus, the legend that Alexander destroyed most of Avesta, which was then
handily re-arranged in the Sassanian times by Zoroastrian priests, is accepted
by people who sneer at the idea that Pentateuch was really written by Moses and
then suddenly discovered in the time of Josiah. Whatever happened to their
skepticism?
It has been claimed that most Nasks, Avestan books, were lost due to the
ravages of Alexander. The only information that we possess about these books is
now contained in 9th-century Pahlavi commentaries like Bundahishn and Denkard -
and yet, as this commentary of Denkard by James Darmesteter shows, lost books
like "Sudgar Nask" contained clear references to the Sassanian
period:
""The seventh fargard, Tâ-ve-rato (Av. tâ ve urvata, Y31.1), is about
the exhibition to Zartosht of the nature of the four periods in the Zoroastrian
millennium (hazangrok zim, "thousand winters"). First, the golden,
that in which Ohrmazd displayed the religion to Zartosht. Second, the silver,
that in which Vishtasp received the religion from Zartosht. Third, the steel,
the period within which the organizer of righteousness, Adurbad Mahraspandan,
was born. Fourth, the period mingled with iron is this, in which is much
propagation of the authority of the apostate and other villains {sarîtarâno),
along with destruction of the reign of religion, the weakening of every kind of
goodness and virtue, and the departure of honour and wisdom from the countries
of Iran. In the same period is a recital of the many perplexities and torments
of the period for that desire (girâyîh) of the life of the good which consists
in seemliness. Perfect is the excellence of Righteousness (Av. ashem vohu
vahistem asti, Y27.14)."
"If this be a correct account of the contents or this fargard, the writer
was evidently consulting a Pahlavi version of the Nask, composed during the
later Sasanian times."
http://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/vohuman.html
If some Biblical book would contain boo-boos like this, sceptics would
late-date it without mercy! See below on the issue of post-Islamic Pahlavi
commentaries.
The other quite uncritically accepted proof for the supposedly early date of
Avestan corpus is the mention in Pliny's Natural History 30:2.4, saying that
Hermippus (around 200 BC) had listed the contents of volumes attributed to
Zoroaster in the library of Alexandria.
However, new studies by scholars like Roger Beck have seriously questioned
whether this citation was really about Avesta or just some Hellenistic
pseudepigraphical literature that went under the name of Zoroaster, much like
equally spurious Hermetical corpus that went under the name of "Hermes
Trismegistus."
De Jong cites Beck's work (Thus spake not Zarathustra: Zoroastrian
pseudepigrapha of the Graeco-Roman world, an "Excursus" in M. Boyce
and F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp.
491-565.) and states (p. 317):
"Zoroaster's place in Greek and Latin literature can be discussed only
briefly in the present context. There is a large amount of texts mentioning his
name, but most of these are Greek and Roman literary fictions which are
unconnected with Iran (apart from the name Zoroaster itself) . Similarly, the
range of Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha is considerable, but with very few
exceptions, owes nothing to Iranian literature or ideas. (2) The same is
undoubtedly true of the famous two million lines of Zoroaster's writing that
are said to have been catalogued in the library of Alexandria. (3) In spite of
the obvious interest ofall the references to Zoroaster and his his writings,
the possibility that they owed something to genuine contact with Iranians or
genuine knowledge of Iranian religions is very slim."
It is by no means impossible that this spurious Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha that
floated around in the Hellenistic world also influenced the report of Diogenes
Laertius (around 200 AD) on Persian beliefs - or what people like Theopompus
had said about them, for as de Jong points out (p. 228):
"There are some serious problems involved, which limit the use that can be
made of such information, however: it is beyond doubt that Diogenes (Laertius)
did not read all the authorities he quotes. He is often thought to have relied
upon compilations of ideas and histories of philosophy that predate his own
work."
If some skeptics can suggest that people like Suetonius or Tacitus were not
relating us really reliable information about Jesus but were rather just
repeating what they had heard others speak about him, then certainly the same
doubt can be extended to Diogenes' report on what people like Theopompus had
said.
In any case, de Jong substantially agrees with Jan Bremmer's (whom he cites)
and JP Holding's interpretation of Diogenes' Theopompus quotation (pp. 327-28):
"Diogenes Laertius uses for the resurrection a term that means "come
back to life" and is used, for instance, to refer to the incarnations of
Epimenides (14). It stresses the return of the life-force rather than the
resurrection of the deceased body. . If Plutarch's extract from Theopompus is
reliable, Theopompus would have understood this resurrection as a taking place
in a spiritual body."
4. THE REVISIONIST TENDENCIES OF THE SASSANIAN PERIOD
Richard Frye emphasizes how unreliable the Persian history-writing before the
Sassanian period (which began in 226 AD) was - let this be compared to a common
skeptical attitude that even a modestly reliable history-writing in Israel
begins only around the time of David and Solomon.
"For the Persians solid history begins with the Sasanians. What transpired
before Ardashir is vague and legendary, a heroic age; but this does not mean
that after Ardashir we escape myth and uncertainty, for what happened and what
people believe should have happened are frequently confused even in that
portion of Iran's history which is related by many different sources."
(from "The Heritage of Persia", pp. 207, 211, 219, 221-223, also
available online here:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/emperor_ardeshir_history1.php
Then Frye describes the tendency of Sassanians to justify their present-day
institutions with made-up historical precedents:
"Later Sasanian tradition, reported mainly in Arabic sources, traces the
beginnings of all institutions of church and state back to Ardashir. He is the
ruler who reinstated or resurrected the old Persian empire with its various
institutions as well as the religion of Zoroaster which had been in eclipse
under the Hellenistic kings and the Parthians. Apursam, the confidant of
Ardashir, was credited with holding the office of prime minister (vuzurg
framadar) while Tansar was the first chief mobad according to Arabic sources.
The purpose of the later Sasanians in attributing an early origin for many
offices was probably that they wished to seek authority for new developments by
clauning that these were in fact not new, but dated from the beginning of the
empire although they had fallen into decay. The antiquarian renaissance of the
time of Chosroes I (6th century AD) is well known and will be discussed below,
and this was probably the period when the reference of institutions back to
Ardashir was made."
Wouldn't it make perfect sense to assume that this crudely revisionist policy
would include even (or, especially) the scriptures of Zoroastrianism, the
state-religion of the Sassanian empire?
Now, let us replace the king Josiah and scribe Ezra of the JEDP scheme with
high priests Kartir (3rd century AD) and Adarbad Mahraspandan (4th century AD).
As my sources will show, they could have well forged Avesta just like sceptics
claim that huge portions of Pentateuch had been forged in the times of Josiah
and Ezra.
They could have foisted several new doctrines (like resurrection) on their
subjects at this point.
Richard Frye says:
"There is no indication that Tosar is to be identified with Kartir, but
his activities, including making a new recension of the Avesta according to the
Denkart would make a veritable Kartir of him. The inscriptions, however, are
more reliable than literary sources and they tell only of Kartir, although a
person called Tosar may have been active under Ardashir before Kartir came to
the fore. Kartir must be the real founder of Zoroastrian orthodoxy under the
early Sasanian kings. . Zoroastrianism for the classical writers was the epitome
of the mysterious, Oriental cult. Yet Kartir and his followers laid the basis
for Zoroastrian orthodoxy which probably opposed magic, demon worship, and the
like as much as did Christian orthodoxy in the empire of the Caesars."
In her OWN quest to make the Zoroastrian theology to look coherent, even Mary
Boyce has been ready to suggest the possibility of blatant interpolations,
perpetrated by the Persian establishment, to Avesta in the Sassanian times. De
Jong describes her theory (p. 67):
"This heresy (Zurvanism) grew very strong in the Sasanian period, where
most kings and their subjects were Zurvanites, and it is to this period that
Boyce assigns the Avestan references to Zurvan and related divinities (81).
Nevertheless, she assigns the origin of Zurvanism to the Achaemenian period,
largely on the basis of some Greek passages."
This is mighty convenient for Boyce, for the Greek knowledge on Persian
theology was even at its best more or less confused - and in any case, de Jong
points out that
"there is not a speck of evidence that suggests that Zurvanism was at any
period, or in the mind of any Zoroastrian theologian, ever considered a
heresy."
Frye speculates that the Sassanid Persians could have been influenced by the
Christian concept of Canon - who knows what else they might have borrowed?
"Belief in divine revelation and the recording of that revelation in books
was in the air, and the Christians, of course, were the most widespread
propagators of the idea of 'Holy Writ'. It may have been because of the example
of the Christians that the Zoroastrian church assembled and canonised its
writings. Zoroastrian tradition claims that fragments of the Avesta were
assembled and presumably written down in Arsacid times and again under Shapur
I. The written Avesta of the early Sasanians must have been really a mnemonic
device to aid the memory of the priests who usually recited the Avesta in a
traditional Oriental manner.
"In the beginning of the fifth century the present Armenian alphabet was
devised mainly to propagate the Christian religion in that land. Some have
conjectured that the present Avestan alphabet was invented about the same time
possibly as a forerunner or even as an imitation of the Armenian alphabet
although the Avestan alphabet in phonetic completeness is more like the
Devanagari alphabet of Sanskrit. It is not impossible to assume a religious
motivation for the creation of this rather late alphabet which, as far as we
know, was only used for texts of the Zoroastrian religion.
". It must be emphasized that we have no old manuscripts of the Avesta,
none earlier than thirteenth or fourteenth century, but the existence of a
written Avesta in Sasanian times much as we know it today seems assured in
spite of the overwhelming importance of the oral tradition. "
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/emperor_ardeshir_history2.php
(Indeed; if you should think that the Bible's historicity is not supported by
enough manuscripts, you should consider the equivalent situation of the Avesta.
Bremmer reports (pg. 47):
"However, our oldest Avestan manuscript dates from only AD 1288, and all
extant manuscripts go back to a single Stammhandschrift of the ninth or tenth
century. (38)" )
Other scholars have propounded similar ideas to those of Frye:
"Hutter's "Manichaeism in Iran in the Fourth Century" attempts
to fill a hole in the history of the Manichaeans in Iran during the reign of
King Sabuhr II (309-379) by examining the few original sources from this
period. He claims that the writing of the Zoroastrian Avesta was in reaction to
the writings of the Manichaeans and this gave the Zoroastrians a means to
counter the growing Manichaean movement in Iran in the 4th century."
(Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.18 - R.E. Emmerick, W. Sundermann, P.
Zieme, Studia Manichaica. IV. Internationaler Kongress zum Manichäismus.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000. Pp. xiv + 666. ISBN 3-05-003330-4. DM 198.)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-09-18.html
J. Bremmer suggests the following theory (pg. 49):
"Rather strikingly, no other mention of resurrection in Iranian thought
(after the Theopompus citation) can be found before the Sassanian period, when
the belief in an afterlife and resurrection was evidently much discussed. It is
against this background that we have to situate the well-known visions of the
Sassanian high priest Kirdir (ca. 280 AD). Why, though, would resurrection,
mentioned only incidentally in the whole of the Old and Young Avesta, have
suddenly risen to such prominence? . We know that in the third and fourth
centuries AD Christianity made great inroads in Iran. (60) It may well be that
the Zoroastrian leader Kirdir decided to beat the Christians on their own
terrain and "upvalued" the resurrection as mentioned in the Young
Avesta. Such a development would at least explain internal Zoroastrian
discussions about resurrection. Had belief in resurrection been an age-old and
respected Zoroastrian dogma, this phenomenon would be much more difficult to
understand."
Add to this the fact that many scholars readily admit that Sassanians might
have copied material from other cultures to Avesta as well!
Whatever R.C. Zaehner might have thought about the relationship between
Zoroastrianism and Judaism, he also strongly propounded the theory that Avestan
compilers had adopted alien ideas and declared them as old Iranian doctrines:
http://www.farvardyn.com/zurvan.php
"Such, then, are the main sources on which we must rely for our
information on the Zoroastrianism of the Sassanian period. The 'orthodoxy' they
reflect is that imposed on the Zoroastrian Church by Khusraw I. It is, however,
not to be supposed that that monarch had eliminated all questionable doctrine
from the corpus of writing in the pahlavi tongue which constituted the
Sassanian Avesta. This corpus, which probably bore little relation to what of
the original Avesta had survived in the Avestan language, had already been
heavily adulterated with extraneous material, and this material, once it had
become embedded in it, passed off as having divine sanction. Shapur I, it will
be recollected, had 'collected those writings from the Religion which were
dispersed throughout India, the Byzantine Empire, and other lands, and which
treated of medicine, astronomy, movement, time, space, substance, creation,
becoming, passing away, qualitative change, logic, and other arts and sciences.
These he added to the Avesta and commanded that a fair copy of all of them be
deposited in the Royal Treasury; and he examined the possibility of basing
every form of academic discipline on the Religion of the Worshippers of
Mazdah."
Zaehner is otherwise correct, but he was subscribing to the legend that
Alexander the Great had destroyed "the original Avesta", whereas it
is quite obvious that Sassanian theologians often simply took and
"baptized" non-Iranian ideas, using the Alexander story as an excuse
that they were simply re-possessing old Avestan doctrines that had been
scattered around the world.
Massoume Price describes this non-Iranian material circulating under the name
of Zoroaster in Sassanian times:
"According to Dinkard, the Zoroastrian canon in Pahlavi, Book IV,
"all knowledge and sciences was received by Zoroaster from Ahura Mazda and
transmitted through Avesta. Destruction of Persia by Alexander dispersed the
texts throughout the world. The Greeks, the Egyptians derived all their
knowledge and science from these dispersed texts. Subsequently Sassanian
emperors took it upon themselves to collect all these texts from all
over". The sources name Byzantium, India and China as the main centers where
book collecting was taking place.
. The Book of Nativities (Kitab al-Mawalid) was a five part astronomical work
that was translated from Pahlavi into Arabic in 750. It was ascribed to
Zoroaster and according to the Iranian historian Sa'id ibn-Khurasan-Khurreh,
"it was translated by Mahankard, an Iranian scholar from among the books
of Zoroaster". "
http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/astrology_astronomy_iran_mesopotamia.php
(On the basis of his name, Mahankard probably wasn't a Muslim but a Zoroastrian
scholar.)
5. POST-ISLAMIC CONQUEST AVESTAN REVISIONISM
Richard Frye notes that the Zoroastrian orthodoxy was not actually totally
formalized until after the Islamic conquest of Persia, thus making even ISLAMIC
influence on Avesta possible!
Before that, there was lots of liberalism in theological beliefs (orthodoxy)
just as long as ceremonial rites were performed correctly (orthopraxy):
"The question of heresies within the Zoroastrian religion is complicated
because our Pahlavi sources are all post-Islamic in date, when the minority
religious communities of the Zoroastrians were more concerned with correct
beliefs than in Sasanian times when the religion was upheld by the state. I
believe that orthopraxy was more important than orthodoxy under the Sasanians
and Zurvanism, or time speculation, was not a heresy in the same manner as
Mazdakism, which was a threat to the practices and the organisation of society
as well as the church."
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/emperor_ardeshir_history2.php
In other words, as long as you didn't disturb the political status quo, the
officials of Sassanian Persia didn't pay much attention to your beliefs and it
was the later Pahlavi commentators that really created the Zoroastrian dogma we
know today.
Zaehner also points out that we have no certain way of knowing just what
Avestan passages are "original" and what just Pahlavi additions:
"What the Zandiks appear to have done was to single out those passages
from the 'Avesta' and Zand which suited their purposes, and to have ignored the
ancient traditional doctrines altogether. This would be all the easier for them
to do in that there never seems to have been any clear dividing-line between
what was 'Avesta', that is, the 'received text' of revelation, and what was
Zand or 'commentary', the two together being known to the Muslims indifferently
as the Avesta u Zand or the Zand u Avesta which was later to appear in European
languages as Zend-Avesta. "
http://www.farvardyn.com/zurvan.php
Others have also seen non-Iranian influences in post-Islamic Pahlavi
commentaries like Denkart, which in turn are our source on much that we know
about Sassanian Avestan doctrines (J. De Menasce, pp. 545, 559-560):
"The (book IV of the Denkart) begins with a sort of philosophical exposition
of the "procession" of the Amesa Spenta in terms reminiscent of
Neoplatonism .
"The systematic treatment of ethics is conducted along more rigorous
lines; here also the ideas are traditional, but the tabulation of virtues and
vies is borrowed largely from the peripatetic school. There are grounds for the
belief that this borrowing is not of recent date but can be traced to the lost
Nasks of Avesta, as is suggested by the rich miscellany of ethical learning
which makes up Book VI of the Denkart. "
In other words, the "lost Nasks" of Avesta (supposedly destroyed by
Alexander) were already influenced by Greek ideas. You may compare this to
claims that Christian ideas on Trinity were influenced by Greek philosophy.
In our days, even liberal Zoroastrian scholars like Dr. Ali Jafarey are ready
to admit the heavy-handed Avestan revisionism:
"(f) Regarding the "ordeal of molten metal," all I have to add
to what Mr. Ardeshir Mehta and Mr. Farshid Bakhtiari have said, is that when
LOGIC fails to convince the minority *intellectuals*; miracle, magic and
trickery are employed to dupe the majority simple to force and enforce the
issue. Did (the high priest) Adurbad undergo the ordeal? I do not believe it.
He had all the power, all the resources to suppress any opposition-a power the
Sassanians employed to brutally crush all those who opposed them. Adurbad did
not need any stunt. He lived in the 4th century CE of the Sassanian supremacy.
The "miracle" ascribed to him was written 500 years later in the
Pahlavi books. We know that these books were written/rewritten during the
Islamic period of utter depression for Zoroastrians-enough to make a mountain
of mole to keep the laity from going over on the other dominating side, also
very rich by that time in miracle stories.
http://www.factnfalse.com/Adurbad%20Maraspandan.htm
"In fact the entire Khordeh Avesta is made up of "cut and paste"
from other parts of the Avesta, including the Gathas plus additions of Pazend
pieces. It is not an original scripture. Although ascribed to Adarbad
Mahraspandan of the Sassanian period, a closer look into scriptural chronology
and lingual structure shows that it is a collection made after the 9th century
CE during the Islamic period of Zoroastrian decentralization and decadence. It
was devised to keep the flickering flame burning and never to SUPPLANT the
Gathas or other guiding parts of the Avesta. It has done so simply because of
the ignorance of the chanters by rote. The Khordeh Avesta still does not have a
standard edition. Each edition differs from the other -- from six to 89
prayers! The entire Khordeh Avesta, ranging from 6,500 to 20,000 words in its
different editions, has only 204 -- only two hundred and four -- words from the
Gathas and the Haptanghaiti of 6,813 words!!! I have a 30-page research essay
on it in Persian.
http://www.factnfalse.com/Distortion%20of%20Avestan%20Texts%20(Response%20and%20Comment).htm
6. ANALYZING AVESTAN PASSAGES THAT CONTAIN ALLUSIONS TO RESURRECTION
We shall now briefly deal with some of the contents of Avesta itself.
James Darmesteter showed that there are in allusions in some parts in Avesta
(Avesta ITSELF, not later commentaries like Denkard), to 4th century AD
Manichaeans and even 6th century AD Mazdakians (Zoroastrianism was not really
plagued by "heretics" until Mani):
"There are two passages in the Vendîdâd which seem to contain internal
evidence of their date, and in both cases it points to Sassanian times, nay,
the second of them points to the age of Manicheism. The first is found in the
eighteenth Fargard (§ 10): Ahura Mazda, while cursing those who teach a wrong
law, exclaims:
'And he who would set that man at liberty, when bound in prison, does no better
deed than if he should flay a man alive and cut off his head.'
This anathema indicates a time when Mazdeism was a state religion and had to
fight against heresy; it must, therefore, belong to Sassanian times.
... However it may be with regard to the foregoing passage, it is difficult not
to see a direct allusion to Manicheism in lines like the following (IV, 47
seq.):
'Verily I say it unto thee, O Spitama Zarathustra! the man who has a wife is
far above him who begets no sons; he who keeps a house is far above him who has
none; he who has children is far above the childless man, he who has riches is
far above him who has none.
'And of two men, he who fills himself with meat is filled with the good spirit
much more than he who does not so; the latter is all but dead; the former is
above him by the worth of an Asperena, by the worth of a sheep, by the worth of
an ox, by the worth of a man.
'It is this man that can strive against the onsets of Astôvîdhôtu; that can
strive against the self-moving arrow; that can strive against the winter fiend,
with thinnest garment on; that can strive against the wicked tyrant and smite
him on the head; it is this man that can strive against the ungodly
Ashemaogha[2] who does not eat[3].'
2. Ashemaogha, 'the confounder of Asha' (see IV, 37), is the name of the fiends
and of the heretics. The Parsis distinguish two sorts of Ashemaoghas, the
deceiver and the deceived; the deceiver, while alive, is margarzân, {footnote
p. xli} worthy of death,' and after death is a darvand (a fiend, or one of the
damned); the deceived one is only margarzân.
3. The Pahlavi translation illustrates the words 'who does not eat' by the
gloss, 'like Mazdak, son of Bâmdâd,' which proves that this part of the
commentary is posterior to, or contemporary with the, crushing of the Mazdakian
sect (in the first years of Khosrav Anôsharvân, about 531). The words 'against
the wicked tyrant' are explained by the gloss, 'like Zarvândâd;' may it not be
Kobâd, the heretic king, or 'Yazdgard the sinner,' the scorner of the Magi?]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe04.htm
This would be an equivalent of some Torah passages alluding to the schools of
Sadducees and Pharisees! Sceptics would late-date it in a twinkling of an eye.
"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" tells us more about
these "heretics" and their relation to the date of Avesta:
"The fact that in both the Yasna and the Vendidad heretics (zanda) are
mentioned who preferred the commentary (zand) on the Avesta to the Avesta
itself, is a sign of late date. Names of certain persons found in the Avesta
(e.g. Atare-pata, a Dastur who lived under Hormuzd I, 273 AD, and
Rastare-Yaghenti, whom the Dinkart identifies with the chief Mobed of Sapor II,
309-379 AD, Aderpad Marespand, and who, according to the Patet, section 28,
"purified" the revelation made to Zoroaster, i.e. revised the text of
the earlier parts of the Avesta) enable us to prove that certain portions of
the work as we now have it were composed as late as near the end of the 4th
century of our era."
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6821
Another sign of late-date: Avesta contains allusions to Buddhism as a
competitor of Mazdaism in Central Asia.
1. From the region of the north, from the regions of the north 1, forth rushed Angra
Mainyu, the deadly, the Daeva of the Daevas 2. And thus spake the evil-doer
Angra Mainyu, the deadly: 'Druj, rush down and kill him,' O holy Zarathushtra!
The Druj came rushing along, the demon Buiti 3, who is deceiving, unseen death
4.
(This is incidentally from the very same story that sceptics claim to parallel
with the story of Jesus' temptation by Satan)
Commentary: "3. Buiti is identified by the Greater Bundahishn with the
Bût, the idol, worshipped by Budasp (a corruption of Bodhisativa). Buiti
[Buddha] would be therefore a personification of Buddhism, which was
flourishing in Eastern Iran in the two centuries before and after Christ.
Buidhi (Vd11.9 may be another and more correct pronunciation of Bodhi. "
http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm
I will now give special attention on two Avestan hymns, Zamyad Yasht (hymn to
the earth) and Frawardin Yasht (hymn to protective deities), plus one point in
Avestan legal code (Vendidad), for they would seem to contain the clearest
allusions on belief in the physical resurrection in all of Avesta.
(In Frawardin Yasht 129., Zamyad Yasht 89. and Vendidad Fargard 18:51)
I will show that they contain so strong allusions to post-Achaemenian times
that sceptics would immediately late-date them, had they been Biblical psalms
instead.
(Many, many psalms were confidently dated to the Maccabean era until Qumran
findings made such notions totally inplausible)
First, Zamyad Yasht contains allusions to Turanian invasions into Iranian
(Aryan) lands. They are even portrayed as attempting to seize the crown of
Iran:
Zamyad Yasht:
55.
We sacrifice unto the awful (kingly) Glory, that cannot be forcibly seized,
made by Mazda ....
56.
Which the Turanian ruffian Frangrasyan tried to seize in the sea Vouru-Kasha.
He stripped himself naked, wishing to seize that Glory that belongs to the
Aryan nations, born and unborn, and to the holy Zarathushtra. But the Glory
escaped, the Glory fled away, the Glory changed its seat, and an arm of the sea
Vouru-Kasha was produced, namely, that lake that is called Lake Husravah.
57.
Then the most crafty Turanian Frangrasyan rushed out of the sea Vouru-Kasha, O
Spitama Zarathushtra! thinking evil thoughts: '.... I have not been able to
conquer the Glory that belongs to the Aryan nations, born and unborn, and to
the holy Zarathushtra.
http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt19sbe.htm
"Turanian" (that is, Central Asian, Altaic, non-Iranian) tribes did
not become this powerful until the invasion of Hephtalite Huns to Eastern
Persia in the 4th and 5th century AD.
It is unlikely that Persians even possessed such imperial mythology of
"kingly glory" (farnah) before the Achaemenian dynasty, and
Achaemenians were never seriously threatened by Central Asian nomads, so it is
logical to date this Yasht to a Sassanian period, as an answer to the challenge
of Hephtalite Huns.
This Yasht also shows such imperious contempt towards "non-Aryan"
(non-Iranian) nations that is unlikely to have developed before the birth of a
great Persian empire:
68. And there comes with him a horse's strength, there comes with him a camel's
strength, there comes with him a man's strength, there comes with him the
kingly Glory: and there is in him, O holy Zarathushtra! so much of kingly Glory
as might extinguish at once all the non-Aryan nations.
This xenophobia also proves that Zamyad Yasht comes from a different era than
the early Gathas, which do not share this anti-Turanian attitude (see
Ushtavaiti Gatha 46:12).
Both Zamyad and Frawardin Yasht may even mention Huns by name (Hunus,
"hinûiwyô") and anachronistically portrays the mythical king
Vishtaspa fighting against them:
Zamyad Yasht 83:
We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda ....
84.
That clave unto king Vistaspa, so that he thought according to the Law, spake
according to the Law, and did according to the Law; so that he professed that
Law, destroying his foes and causing the Daevas to retire.
85.
Who, driving the Druj before him, sought wide room for the holy religion; who,
driving the Druj before him, made wide room for the holy religion; who made
himself the arm and support of this law of Ahura, of this law of Zarathushtra;
86.
Who took her, standing bound, from the hands of the Hunus, and established her
to sit in the middle [of the world], high ruling, never falling back, holy,
nourished with plenty of cattle and pastures, blessed with plenty of cattle and
pastures.
Frawardin Yasht:
99. We worship the Fravashi of the holy king Vistaspa; the gallant one, who was
the incarnate Word, the mighty-speared, and lordly one; who, driving the Druj
before him, sought wide room for the holy religion; who, driving the Druj
before him, made wide room for the holy religion, who made himself the arm and
support of this law of Ahura, of this law of Zarathushtra.
100. Who took her, standing bound, from the hands of the Hunus, and established
her to sit in the middle [of the world], high ruling, never falling back, holy,
nourished with plenty of cattle and pastures, blessed with plenty of cattle and
pastures.
Here we could also easily find a "synoptic problem"- two Yashts
blatantly copying each other.
Second, Frawardin Yasht contains allusions to Buddhism:
Frawardin Yasht 16. 'Through their brightness and glory a man is born who is a
chief in assemblies and meetings, who listens well to the (holy) words, whom
Wisdom holds dear, and who returns a victor from discussions with Gaotema, the
heretic.
http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt13sbe.htm
"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" comments on this:
"Mention of controversies with Gautama, Buddha's disciples (Yasht XIII,
16) who probably reached Persia in the 2nd century BC, is another indication of
date."
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6821
Frawardin Yasht 89. Who was the first Priest, the first Warrior, the first
Plougher of the ground; who first took the turning of the wheel5 from the hands
of the Daeva and of the cold-hearted man; who first in the material world
pronounced the praise of Asha, thus bringing the Daevas to naught, and
confessed himself a worshipper of Mazda, a follower of Zarathushtra, one who
hates the Daevas, and obeys the laws of Ahura.
Darmesteter's Commentary:
"5. The wheel of sovereignty (?); cf. Yt10.67; this expression smacks of
Buddhism."
Frawardin Yasht also contains references to those
"Ashemaogha"-heretics that Darmesteter noticed:
105. We worship the Fravashi of the holy Mathravaka, the son of Simaezhi, the
Aethrapati, the Hamidhpati, who was able to smite down most of the evil,
unfaithful Ashemaoghas, that shout the hymns, and acknowledge no lord and no
master, the dreadful ones whose Fravashis are to be broken; to withstand the
evil done by the faithful.
They "shout hymns" AND "acknowledge no lord and master" -
there was no other group in Iran until anarchistic Manichaeans that fitted both
these descriptions.
In the same manner, Vendidad's Fargard 18 shows these "ashemaoghas"
as priestly competitors of Magians, supporting Hutter's theory on Avesta's
codification in the 4th century AD as a response to the Manichaean challenge:
"11. 'For the blessing uttered by a wicked, ungodly Ashemaogha does not go
past the mouth (of the blesser); the blessing of two Ashemaoghas13 does not go
past the tongue; the blessing of three13 is nothing; the blessing of four13
turns to self-cursing.
12. 'Whosoever should give to a wicked, ungodly Ashemaogha either some Haoma
prepared, or some Myazda consecrated with blessings, does no better deed than
if he should lead a thousand horse against the boroughs of the worshippers of
Mazda, and should slaughter the men thereof, and drive off the cattle as
plunder. "
http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd18sbe.htm
7. CONCLUSION
And now, let me end this treatise by repeating my assertion from the beginning
of this essay:
SKEPTICS, IT IS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THIS OR THAT AVESTAN PASSAGE THAT YOU
SEE AS AN INSPIRATION FOR SOME BIBLICAL DOCTRINE IS NOT A LATE SASSANIAN
FORGERY.
I hereby challenge you to take some non-Gathic Avestan passage with advanced
eschatology and conclusively prove that it dates from a pre-Christian era.
SOURCES:
"Pre-Islamic Iranian Thought" by Alessandro Bausani, http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/6.htm
The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the
University of Bristol (2001) by Jan. N. Bremmer
THE ZEND-AVESTA, PART I, TRANSLATED BY JAMES DARMESTETER.
Sacred Books of the East, Volume 4. Oxford University Press, 1880. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/zoroscripts/venindex.htm
The Heritage of Persia (1962), by Richard N. Frye. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/emperor_ardeshir_history1.php
The Golden Age of Persia (1975), by Richard N. Frye,
Zoroaster - Politician or Witch Doctor? (Lectures by Walter B. Henning) http://www.vohuman.org/Library/Zoroaster%20%E2%80%93%20Politician%20or%20Witch%20Doctor%20(lecture%203%20of%203).htm
Traditions of the Magi - Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (1997) by
Albert de Jong.
Zoroastrian Literature After the Muslim Conquest, The Cambridge History of
Iran, Volume 4 (1975), by J. De Menasce.
"Astrology & Astronomy in Iran and Ancient Mesopotamia" by
Massoume Price, December 2001. http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/astrology_astronomy_iran_mesopotamia.php
Zoroastrianism in Armenia, (Harvard University Press, 1987), by James R.
Russell
The religion of Achaemenian Iran, The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2.
(1985) by Martin Schwartz.
Entry for 'PERSIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (ANCIENT), International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia (1915), by W. St. Clair Tisdall. http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6821
The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (1961), by R.C. Zaehner. http://www.farvardyn.com/zurvan.php
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
APPENDIX 1: THE LIGHT INFLUENCE OF AVESTAN DOCTRINES ON PRE-ISLAMIC PERSIAN
MASSES
We have seen that the masses of Zoroastrian Iran practised quite a different
religion than the separate Magian elite. (This means that sociological chances
of Avestan doctrines being borrowed into the Bible grow dimmer and dimmer.)
According to Prof. Alessandro Bausani,
"Heresy (as it happened first with Manichaeism supported at its beginnings
by King Shahpur, 241272 A. D., and then with communistic Mazdakism,
favoured by King Kawat, 488531) was sometimes a useful pretext for
the warrior caste of the kings  a caste that seemed to possess its
own religious tradition different from that of the priestly caste 
to escape the excessive power of the Magi. The discontentment hidden under the
outwardly uniform orthodoxy, the unbearable poverty of the peasants, never
totally imbued with the religion of the elite, and no doubt possessing their
own religious customs and traditions practically unknown to us, and the
struggle between Throne and Altar, were some of the causes that rendered the
conquest of Iran by the Arabs so astonishingly easy."
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/6.htm
And it was only after the Islamic conquest, around the 9th century AD, that
Zoroastrian scholars finally put together a consistent catechism for the
remaining members of the old religion to follow, much like Talmudic scholars
created a largely new religion of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Romans.
Comparison to Talmud seems quite apt: say, we have about as little reason to
believe that the regulations of Vendidad derive originally from Zarathustra as
that Talmud really transmits doctrines of Moses to us.
As Glenn Miller points out, Talmudic sages did not hesitate to declare that
Israelites of earlier times had faithfully subscribed to doctrines that had
actually been invented later (Miller quoting John Meier) :
"More recently, Jewish scholars like Jacob Neusner and Shaye Cohen, as
well as Christian scholars like E. P. Sanders and Anthony Saldarini, have urged
greater caution in the use of rabbinic literature to delineate the very
different conditions of Judaism in pre-70 Palestine."
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/shellgame.html
In the likewise manner, we should be cautious when using Avesta to determine
what Persians in the pre-Christian centuries really believed in.
James Russell theorizes that Armenians may have preserved us some notions on
the nature of Iranian religions before Sassanian and post-Islamic reforms:
(Pg. 11-12)
"At the time of Ananikean's writing (early 20th century) it was generally
considered that the only "pure" Zoroastrianism was of the
iconoclastic Sasanians (their depiction of Ahura Mazda as a human figure on
bas-reliefs is conveniently forgotten), with their cult purged of foreign
influences (the worship of Anahita nonwithstanding) and their theology true to
the teachings of Zarathustra (despite evidence to the effect that the Zurvanite
heresy was professed by the higher officials of the state). On the basis of
this spurious understanding, fostered partly by the Sasanians themselves (who
accorded credit, however, for the first compilation of the texts of the Avesta
to a Parthian predecessor, Valaxs (28) ), and partly also by Zoroastrians and
Westerners of the nineteenth century who sought to purge the Good Religion of
what they perceived as barbaric and polytheistic accretions, the religion of
the Parthians was dismissed as a form of Hellenistic syncretism rather than
authentic Zoroastrianism, and the religion of the Armenians, which shows close
similarities to the Parthian type, was likewise denigrated.
"The influence of such prevailing attitudes prevented Ananikean from
considering the pre-Christian religion of Armenia as a form of Zoroastrianism
whose assimilation of non-Zoroastrian aspects, both Iranian and non-Iranian,
illuminate the character of the Faith as it was anciently practised, rather
than obscure it."
(pg. 297)
"In Ch. 5 it was noted that most Armenian writers draw a careful
distinction between the Pth. or Middle Atropatenian, NW Middle Iranian form of
the name of the Creator, Ahura Mazda, Aramazd, and the Middle Persian form
Ormizd (Phl. Ohrmazd). The former is the name of the Zoroastrian God whom their
ancestors worshipped; the latter is the god of the militant, iconoclastic
Sasanian church."
Now, for example, it would seem that in spite of some Zoroastrian theories
about celestial afterlife, ordinary ancient Iranians entertained Hades-like
ideas about the underworld - remember, according to Herodotus they did not
follow Magian burial-rules in the Achaemenian times. This would have been the
general attitude in Zoroastrian Armenia (before its conversion to Christianity
around 300 AD) as well.
Naturally Iranian beliefs could not have then acted as an inspiration for
post-exilic Israelites to abandon their older notions about Sheol.
Spenta Armaiti, one of the six Amesha Spentas (bounteous immortals) of Ahura
Mazda, was the angelic genius of the earth in later Zoroastrian theology, but
originally she was probably just a personification of Mother Earth.
Russell, pg. 323-5:
"Zoroastrians consider death an unqualified evil, and inhumation of a dead
body in a grave must therefore defile Armaiti, who is both identical with and
guardian over the earth; according to the Videvdat, 3.8-9, graves and daxmas
grieve the divinity. Zoroastrianism did not conceive of Armaiti as ruler
of the underworld, for the proper place for the departed soul was either heaven
in the sky, purgatory, or hell. Armaiti, being wholly good, cannot have had any
association with hell, but we do find the grave referred to as "the
darkness of Spenta Armaiti." (7) Yet it seems that most classes of society
in both Armenia and Iran practised both burial and the theologically sanctioned
method of exposure of a corpse until the end of the Sasanian period. It seems
that there was connected with the practice of burial also the belief that Armaiti
was indeed the guardian and ruler of the dead; this idea may have originated in
as a fusion of Zoroastrian belief in Spenta Armaiti as guardian of the earth
with ancient beliefs according to which earth was the entrance-way to the
underworld.
Armenian Sandaramet
"In the Armenian translation of the Bible is attested the word
sandaramet-k, meaning "Hades or the underworld (Gk. Hades, ge kato)",
and a derivative adjective, sandarametakan. (8) . But sandaramet originally
meant, presumably, the earth, in which men's remains lie rather than the spaces
below the earth in which their souls were believed to sleep or wander.
. Meillet long ago suggested that Spandaramet must be a Northwest
Middle-Iranian form of the name Spenta Armaiti, while sandaramet-k is a
loan-word from Southwest Iranian, possibly Old Persian . The use of
sandaramet-k as a common noun meaning "underworld" indicates that
that the earth was regarded as the abode of the dead at the time when this term
was introduced into Armenian. Although such a belief was undoubtedly persistent
in later ages, such an explicit statement of it argues an archaic date, and we
note that the Armenian does not have the neutral meaning of "earth"
which is found in the Pahlavi literature, where, besides, a derivative of the
Avestan is used and not a Southwest Iranian form: spandarmad zamig
"Spandarmad, the earth". (19) It is likely that Sandaramet was seen
as a divinity of the underworld, ruler of the kingdom of the dead, through a
fusion of Zoroastrian and archaic beliefs as suggested above, and that the name
came later to mean "the underworld" generally, without referring to a
supernatural being."
(pg. 332)
"During his interrogation of St. Gregory the Illuminator on the nature of
Christian faith, King Tiridates III asks: "And who might this Christ be?
Show me, that I may know, the one who might be the recompenser of your labours,
whom you call Creator. Might he be a sahapet of the tombs whom you desire to
reach, or is he the releaser of your imprisoning bonds?" (58) In the
dramatic exchange presented by Agathangelos, the Illuminator replies to this
sarcastic challenge by replying that Christ is indeed the sahapet and pahapan
"guardian" of the tombs, to which He descended voluntarily. (59)
. The sahapet of the tombs, the ruler of the underworld, would be that divinity
identified with and dwelling in the earth, with its darkness as well as its
bounty at once funereal and Dionysian: Spandaramet."
(pg. 342, 343-44)
"For all the chilling forms of the demons on earth and the similar forms
they assume in hell, the Armenian conception of Heaven, or at least of the
afterlife, does not seem to have been very much brighter in many cases, and
reflects the archaic belief in a dim, chthonian place of shades.
. Armenian concepts of the next world for all but royalty, who would,
presumably, have been assured of good hunting, seem so bleak that it is little
wonder the ancestors required the continuous attentions of the living and
enjoyed interfering in the affairs of the world they had left. Offerings placed
upon graves, restrictions against spilling water on the ground at night, and,
of course, burial itself indicate that the belief in a subterranean kingdom of
the dead persisted through Zoroastrian times into the Christian era, despite
the teachings of both religions concerning Heaven."
Even at the funerals of Iranian kings, Avestan rules were often very absent:
(pg. 337-8)
"Both Achaemenian and Sasanian monarchs were buried in tombs, although no
archaeological evidence has of such tombs has for the latter period has yet
come to light, and Sasanian laws of the fifth century prescribed severe
penalties for the internment of corpses in the earth. (90)"
. Mass sacrifices were carried out at the funerals of great men, presumably in
accordance with a belief that dead slaves and animals continued to serve their
master in the next world. Xorenaci relates that at the funeral of Artases I
(king of Armenia, 2nd century BC) "there were many killings, according to
the customs of the heathens".
(pg. 118, 143)
"The Parthian king Vologases III (148-192 AD) installed his son Pacorus on
the throne of Armenia, but the latter was deposed scarcely three years later by
the invading Romans, who restored the crown to Sohaemus. Pacorus appears to
have been taken as a hostage to Rome, for he dedicated there a funerary altar
to his brother Mithradates, calling himself Aurelius Pakoros Basileus Megales
Armenias and invoking "the gods beneath the earth." (23)
. The "gods" referred to may be Greco-Roman, but more likely the
yazata Spenta Armaiti is meant, with other chthonic divinities. It is known
that that the Armenian Orontids buried their dead at Angl, site of the shrine
of Torkc, equated with the Mesopotamian Nergal, lord of the underworld."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
APPENDIX 2: PRESENCE OF "UN-ZOROASTRIAN" POLYTHEISM IN ANCIENT IRAN
The Cyrus Cylinder would indicate that Cyrus was a polytheist pure and simple.
In this only document that we have from Cyrus himself, he doesn't seem to show
any Zoroastrian consciousness - then how could he had possibly made Jews adopt
something that he himself did not subscribe to?
Here's the Cyrus cylinder text online - no sign of Zoroaster or his doctrines
anywhere:
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/cyrus.html
Indeed, Schwartz also gives us examples on how once Persians got into touch
with other cultures, they began immediately to adopt alien religious ideas (p.
691-692):
"Herodotus further informs us that after the crossing of the Strymon,
which the Magi propitiated by sacrificing white horses, nine local boys and
girls were buried at a place called Nine Ways, and that burial alive was a
Persian practice;
(My note: this also shows how well the story about Daniel in the den of lions
reflected actual 6th-century BC culture!)
"further we learn that Xerxes' wife Amestris in her old age supposedly had
seven pairs of Persians killed in this manner as a thank-offering to a
subterranean deity. A.D.H. Bivar has seen this divinity as related to the
Babylonian underworld god Nergal (1). I would note in this connection the
possible significance of the fact that seven couples were sacrificed; compare
on the one hand the seven stages of the descent of Inanna into the underworld
into the presence of Ereshkigal, consort of Nergal, and on the other hand the
Babylonian doctrine of seven heavens (reflected in the construction of Deioces'
palace at Ecbatana, as described by Herodotus (1.98)). (2)"
Besides these theories, it is widely acknowledged that the astrological ideas
and star-worship that the non-Gathic Avesta is filled with are due to
Mesopotamian influences, thus making even more impossible to date it to a
pre-Achaemenian period.
James Russell describes how some of these influences that made their way to
Avestan religion (pg. 290, 291-292) :
"The cult of Nabu, or Nebo, survived in Sasanian Mesopotamia: a
martyrology preserved in Syriac relates that Sabuhr II (A.D. 309-379) commanded
a general named Mucain to abandon Christianity and to worship Nebo and other
gods. (7) As his Semitic name indicates, Mucain was most likely neither an
Iranian or a Zoroastrian, and the Sasanian king was therefore probably not
referring to Tir, the Zoroastrian yazata he himself worshipped.
. The name Tir is nowhere to be found in the Avesta, (9) yet this yazata is
extremely prominent in Zoroastrianism. The fourth month and the thirteenth day
of each month bear his name, and theophoric names with Tir- are numerous in
Iranian. (10) These show that Tir was a divinity of importance in Achaemenian
times:
. It seems that the cult of Nabu was adopted by the Western Iranians, who
assimilated Nabu to their own, probably minor, stellar divinity Tir.
. In order for Tir(i) to be worshipped by Zoroastrians, it was necessary to
that he be somehow equated with an Avestan divinity, Tistrya. (16) Tistrya is
identified with the star Sirius and is pictured in the Avesta as bringing rain
and fighting Apaosha, the demonic personification of drought; (17) none of
these functions are shared by Tir, but Nabu as the planet Mercury was
associated with the coming of "life-giving rain and flood" in
Babylonia, and Tirikana- was a rain-festival. This important function thus
linked Tiri-Nabu and Tistrya. (18)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
APPENDIX 3: ON THE IRANIAN DEMONOLOGY
It might be worth noting that just like it has been claimed that the OT
conception of Satan "evolved" under the influence of Zoroastrianism,
scholars also think that the image of the Persian devil evolved as well between
the time of Gathas, later Avesta, and Pahlavi commentaries.
M. Schwartz, p. 681:
"Angra Mainyu is named but once in the Gathas (Yasna 45:2; the variant Aka
Mainyu "The Evil Spirit" occurs at Yasna 35:2) but is exceedingly
common in later texts. . The Avesta does not oppose Angra Mainyu directly
against Ahura Mazda except in the last chapter of the Videvdad, where it is
said that the former created 99,999 diseases against the latter. This has been
seen as possibly due to a specifically Magian simplification of the original
Zarathushtrian doctrine opposing Angra Mainyu to Spenta Mainyu rather than
directly to Ahura Mazda."
Doesn't this look like skeptic claims that OT does not originally portray Satan
as a direct enemy of God?
Until the reformations in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, the role of devil
Ahriman in Iranian religions seems to have been far from crystal-clear:
James Russell, pg. 438-440:
"From earliest times to the very end of Sasanian dynasty and later, the
worship of the daevas as gods by non-Zoroastrians, as in Sogdia, together with
the propitiation of the devs as demons by nominally Zoroastrian practitioners
of black magic, persisted throughout the Iranian world, despite the best
efforts of kings and clerics to eradicate it.
. (Xerxes') own wife, Amestris, is said to have buried alive fourteen Persian
boys of distinguished family in order to propitiate the god of the underworld;
the Magi buried alive nine boys and nine girls during the Persian invasion of
Greece. (7) Although Angra Mainyu receives the epipthet khthónios "of the
earth (or underworld)" in Hippolytus, (8) it is unlikely that Amestris of
the Magi were performing black magic in a Zoroastrian context; at this early
period, it is probable that they were practising the rituals of the elder gods.
Perhaps the Armenians adopted from Old Persian a term sandaramet meaning
"underworld" generally, without specific reference to the Zoroastrian
yazata Spandarmad (Av. Spenta Armaiti). (9) It seems that there still existed
in Achaemenian times the pre-Zoroastrian conception of an underworld of shades,
to be distinguished from the Zoroastrian after-life of rewards and punishments.
. The ruler of the pagan underworld was probably Yima (Skt. Yama), who may be
the adam-é siw zwín "person beneath the earth" to whom certain
Zoroastrians of the community of Sarifabad, near Yazd, offer the propitiatory
sacrifice of a black hen - black being the colour of evil. (11) We have
suggested (12) that the image of Zahhák in Shah-Name may come from an original
conception of Yima based upon the Mesopotamian Nergal; one recalls that in the
Persian epic youths were sacrificed and their brains devoured by Zahhák."
.
"In the Parthian period, Plutarch states explicitly that Persians (to be
understood as Iranians generally) make apotropaic offerings to both Oromazes
and Areimanios (i.e., Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu). For the rites of the
latter, they pound an herb called omomi, invoke Hades and darkness, mix the
herb with the blood of a slaughtered wolf and throw it away in a sunless place.
(13) . According to Clement of Alexandria, the Magi boasted that they could
bring demons under their power and compel evil spirits to serve them. (16) This
may be compared to the boasting of the youthful monster Snávidhka in Yt.
19.43-4, who promises to harness both Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu to his
chariot when he grows up.
. The Denkard describes rites of praise and propitiation of Ahriman and the
demons which were conducted in darkness and secrecy. (18) It would appear that
in the Sasanian period and later, there existed both sorcery for the purpose of
power or propitiation, based upon the perversion of Zoroastrian doctrine and
ritual, and also a form of the older, non-Zoroastrian daeva-worship."
(pg. 346)
"In Iran, too, cults varying from the heterodox to the demonic (from a
Zoroastrian point of view) flourished through Sasanian times, despite the
periodic persecution of their followers by Kartir and others. One recalls that
the naxarar structure of Armenian and Parthian society, a flexible and often
volatile alliance of local dynasts, was ill-suited to a centralised religious
bureaucracy capable of such inquisitions, and greater accommondation of the
heterodox was necessary."
How could the Persian demonology have influenced the Biblical concept of Satan
if it itself was clearly still evolving out of voodoo-esque ideas in the
pre-Sassanian centuries? This seems to have been the level of Mazdaism as
practiced by masses, and the more complicated forms of Zoroastrian doctrine, as
found in the Avesta, were the property of an exclusive Magian caste that was
emphatically NOT eager to perform missionary work among foreigners.
Besides, even these more advanced Magian doctrines were themselves severely
contaminated by Zurvanistic fatalism that would have actually much more
probably influenced heretical Gnostic sects instead of Biblical authors.
By establishing an independent area of operation for the devil Ahriman, by making him capable of creating things of his own (unlike the fundamentally uncreative Biblical Satan, who can only abuse and pervert the creations of YHWH), Zoroastrianism might have been a fertile breeding-ground for Gnosticism, and some scholars have observed this as well:
""In oriental (Persian) dualism," says Professor Bousset, "it is within this material world that the good and the evil powers are at war, and this world beneath the stars is by no means conceived as entirely subject to evil. Gnosticism has combined the two, the Greek opposition between spirit and matter, and the sharp Zoroastrian dualism, which, where the Greek mind conceived of a higher and a lower world, saw instead two hostile worlds standing in contrast to each other like light and darkness. And out of the combination of these two dualisms arose the teaching of Gnosticism with its thoroughgoing pessimism and its fundamental asceticism" ("Gnosticism," in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, XII, 154)."
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3837
"We must also reject the theory that this degradation of the planetary deities into daemons is due to the influence of Hebrew monotheism, for almost all the Gnostic sects take up a definitely hostile attitude towards the Jewish religion, and almost always the highest divinity among the Seven is actually the creator-God of the Old Testament. There remains, then, only one religion which can be used as an explanation, namely the Persian, which in fact fulfils all the necessary conditions.
"A combination of the Babylonian with the Persian religion could only be effected by the degradation of the Babylonian deities into half-divine, half-daemonic beings, infinitely remote from the supreme God of light and of heaven, or even into powers of darkness. Even the characteristic dualism of Gnosticism has already proved to be in part of Iranian origin; and now it becomes clear how from that mingling of late Greek and Persian dualism the idea could arise that these seven half-daemonic powers are the creators or rulers of this material world, which is separated infinitely from the light-world of the good God. Definite confirmation of this conjecture is afforded us by later sources of the Iranian religion, in which we likewise meet with the characteristic fundamental doctrine of Gnosticism. Thus the Bundahish (iii. 25, v. 1) is able to inform us that in the primeval strife of Satan against the light-world, seven hostile powers were captured and set as constellations in the heavens, where they are guarded by good star-powers and prevented from doing harm."
http://64.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GN/GNOSTICISM.htm
The most developed and famous form of Iranian Gnosticism would be naturally Manichaenism, and Samuel Lieu describes how the simplistic Zoroastrian theory that some harmful animals (like flies) were fundamentally "evil" creations of Ahriman could be utilized by it, taking the idea to its "logical conclusion":
(Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and the Medieval China, by S. Lieu, pg.188-9)
"In one of Augustine's homilies we have an excellent illustration of how Manichaean preacher could capitalise on a mundane situation to make a theological point on the evil nature of creation. A Catholic was once greatly troubled by flies and confessed to a Manichaean who chanced upon him that he could not tolerate flies and hated them exceedingly. The Manichaean asked him, "Who made them?". Since he was suffering intensely from the flies, the Catholic dared not say, "God made them," even though as a Catholic this was expected of him. The Manichaean, who was clearly working through a stock of prepared questions, immediately asked: "If God did not make them, who made them?". "To tell you the truth, I believe that the Devil made the flies." The Manichaean came out with another prepared question, "If the Devil made the flies, as you seem to me to be saying, who made the bee which is slightly larger than the fly?". The bemused Catholic had little choice but to admit that the Devil also made the bee. From the bee the Manichaean led him to the locust, from the locust to the lizard and from the lizard to the bird, sheep, cow, elephant and finally man. He even managed to persuade him that it was the Devil who made man. "Poor fellow," remarked Augustine, "being troubled with flies he had himself become a fly as the name Beelzebub means "Lord of the Flies"." (167)"
And even within official Sassanian Zoroastrianism, Zurvanists propounded the notion that Ahuramazda and Ahriman were originally twins, both spawned by the primordial deity Zurvan ("The Eternal Time," similar to Kronos, the father of all gods among the Greeks).
At this point, let us recall that according to the latest scholarship (de Jong) "there is not a speck of evidence that suggests that Zurvanism was at any period, or in the mind of any Zoroastrian theologian, ever considered a heresy." In other words, it was rather mainstream stuff instead.
For example, already in that one original mention of Evil Spirit in the Gathas, he is presented as more or less equal TWIN of the Good Spirit:
"45:2. I will speak of the Spirits twain at the first beginning of the world, of whom the holier spoke thus to the enemy: "Neither thought, nor teachings, nor wills, nor beliefs, nor words, nor deeds, nor selfs, nor souls of us twain agree"."
http://www.avesta.org/yasna/y43to46b.htm
(We are unfortunately not yet totally through with this dualistic doctrine, since (for example) the Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer were originally celestial brothers!)
Also, in this famous letter to Christian Armenians in around 450 AD, the official representative of the Sassanian state, vizier Mihrnarseh, preaches obvious Zurvanism as the orthodox Persian faith that he expects the Armenians to return to:
www.sasanika.com/pdf/Armenian letter.pdf (Letter from History of Vardan and the Armenian War)
"For before heaven and earth existed the great god Zrvan sacrificed for a thousand years and said: 'Perhaps I shall have a son, Ormizd by name, who will create heaven and earth.' And he conceived two in his belly, one from making sacrifice and one from saying 'perhaps.' When he knew that there were two in his belly, he said: 'To the one who emerges first I shall give my rule.'
"But the one who had been conceived from his doubt tore open the belly and came out. Zrvan said to him: 'Who are you?' He said: 'I am your son Ormizd.' Zrvan said to him: 'My son is luminous and sweet-smelling, you are gloomy and evil-loving.' And when he had wept very bitterly, he game him his rule for a thousand years.
"When he begat the other son he called him Ormizd. He took the rule from Arhmn and gave it to Ormizd, saying to him: 'Up to now I sacrificed to you, now do you sacrifice to me.' And Ormizd created heaven and earth, but Arhmn worked evil in opposition."
Zaehner describes the absurdity of Zurvanism in the eyes of non-Zoroastrians:
"In the Zurvanism presented to us by the non-Zoroastrian sources, however, Ohrmazd is neither omnipotent nor omniscient: he is not even capable of looking after his own interests. Thus he gratuitously reveals to Ahriman the secret that whichever of the twins will first present himself to their father, Zurvan, will receive the kingdom. Again, after creating heaven and earth, he can think of no way of illuminating them and has to be instructed on how to do this by a demon who is a renegade from Ahriman's camp. Similarly, Ahriman who is an evil substance for the orthodox, is, for the Zurvanites, evil by choice. He chooses the sinister weapon offered to him by Zurvan, 'like unto fire, blazing, harassing all creatures, that hath the very substance of concupiscence (Az)', and himself boasts that' "it is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And that he might give effect to his words, he created the peacock.'
"This is a genuine, and a fundamental, difference between Zurvanism and orthodoxy, and a Christian convert from Zoroastrianism can thus taunt his inquisitors with these words: 'Should we, then, try to please Ahriman who, according to what you yourselves say, appears wise, knowing, and mighty from his works, just as Ohrmazd appears weak and stupid, for he could create nothing till he had learnt from the disciples of Ahriman.'
http://www.farvardyn.com/zurvan2.php
Russell shows how Zurvanism could have worked as an inspiration for those Gnostics who considered this world to be the realm of an inferior, evil creator-god (pg. 440):
"A heresy of Zoroastrianism which was very widespread in Persia from Achaemenian times, Zurvanism, (20) deprived Ahura Mazda of his omniscience . According to one Zurvanite myth, Ahura Mazda acquired the knowledge of how to create light from a demon named Mahmí, who learned the secret from the Evil Spirit. Syrian and Armenian polemicists of the period claimed that "priests of this sect" (i.e., the Zurvanite Zoroastrians) offered sacrifices annually to Mahmí, and chided Zoroastrians for persecuting worshippers of demons when they were no better themselves. (21) The Manichaeans also ridiculed the Zurvanites for this practice. (22) No reference to Mahmí as a being is known in surviving Zoroastrian literature."
Now, if there were a Christian equivalent for all this, imagine what sort of revisionist conspiracy Dan Brown ("Da Vinci Code") might make out of it! Demon Mahmí exorcised out of the canonical writings.