
An obscure religion that shaped the West - pmcpinto
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
======
vivekd
>. As well, one could well argue that the cosmic battle between the Light and
Dark sides of the Force in Star Wars has, quite ostensibly, Zoroastrianism
written all over it.

. . . Or Christianity, or Hindu epics like Ramayana, or the Buddhist struggle
for enlightenment and non-violence against our darker natures.

>, as well as the inspiration for the legend of Azor Ahai – a demigod who
triumphs over darkness – in George RR Martin’s Game of Thrones, as many of its
fans discovered last year.

I don't think Gerote RR Martin has ever gone on record about that, this is
just speculation

>The idea of a single god was not the only essentially Zoroastrian tenet to
find its way into other major faiths, most notably the ‘big three’: Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.

Jewish Monotheism was most strongly advocated by the Prophet Isiah. While this
was done in Babylon, it was done prior to the birth of Zarathustra.

Also the mention of Renaissance figures mentioning Zoroastrianism, while
accurate, doesn't seem to be some much an influence of Zoroastrianism itself,
but rather a fascination for Eastern culture that existed at the time coupled
with a superficial understanding of Zoroastrianism.

EDIT: Downvoters and contrarians, you seem to have the wrong date for
Zarthustra's birth was around 628 BCE to 555 BCE not more than 3000 ago like
some people are suggesting for some reason. Also, even if you argue the birth
date, his religion wasn't popular in Iran until it was adopted by Darius in
the mid 6th Century, so really it doesn't get you anything.

See:

[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Zarathustra](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Zarathustra)

~~~
salimmadjd
>Jewish Monotheism was most strongly advocated by the Prophet Isiah. While
this was done in Babylon, it was done prior to the birth of Zarathustra.

Not True! Scholars put Zarathustra 1000 BCE or even as far back as 1700BCE but
[0] but Isaiah at around 700 BCE [1]

Also many aspect of Judaism like the story of flood or creation were copied
from Epic of Gilgamesh [2] that goes even further back.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh)

~~~
baldfat
Isaiah is a newer prophet when Israel was conquered by Babylon. The Pentateuch
is much much older. The argument of Isaiah is about the development of God of
Israel was the great of all the gods to their is no other gods.

> Epic of Gilgamesh

The whole argument is to ask when was the Pentateuch was written. The
scholarship for this has had many arguments with people placing it in 700 BCE
(Which was just crazy especially if you read Hebrew) many are placing it to
the discovery of written language. Prior to written language we had a very
strong oral history. Both Gilgamesh and the Pentateuch have evidence pointing
to the discovery of a written language. We have ancient Hebrew (What a pain to
read) and it does show a strong relation with Egyptian discovery of writing.

Another interesting this is the uniqueness of the Pentateuch to the other
writings from ANE (I had to read a ton of them). The academic discipline in
these writing is really interesting and to say that one influenced another is
pretty much impossible to do, but it has been shown since the 1860s onward
that archeology have discovered allot of sites that date way before what
people were thinking and we continue to learn more and more.

~~~
sorokod
Where in Pentateuch does it say that only a single god exists?

Alternatively we have:

When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he
fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings,
for Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

\- Deuteronomy 32:8–9

------
inputcoffee
For some reason the exact dates have become an issue. From Wikipedia we know
there is no consensus:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster)

"Dating is uncertain as there is no scholarship consensus,[3] as on linguistic
and socio-cultural evidence, he is dated around 1000 BCE and earlier, but
others put him in the 7th and 6th century BCE as a contemporary or near-
contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius I.[4][5][6][7] "

And you can follow the links there.

There are two important distinctions we, who write comments here, should make:

1\. There is a difference between when a historical figure is reputed to have
lived, and when the first influential texts based on that figure came into
being. The text often has a stronger claim to historical influence and is
certainly easier to locate in time.

2\. There is a difference between an abstract idea that someone thought of
"first" and the version of that idea that actually birthed the version that we
know. So, for instance, if there was a historical figure in a cave who never
wrote anything, but merely thought of monotheism, that is not the same thing
as a written text that was read by Abraham, or the writer of the text in which
Abraham appeared.

All this is just to say, let's be clear on what we are arguing, at least.

~~~
baldfat
Just bad academic research. I ran into it all the time as a Theology Student.
People from other Academic Disciplines would repeat something without a
reference and it would become its own self referencing statement that after
further investigation just proved to be some lazy scholarship by people not in
the field. Like a historian making chemistry statements.

~~~
cat199
The main point of this article in my opinion, is not so much Zoroastrianism
itself, as it is the conclusion that:

" Iran’s many other legacies and influences aside, the all but forgotten
religion of Zoroastrianism just might provide the key to understanding how
similar ‘we’ are to ‘them’. "

and so I would similarly presume that any editorial slant would likely take
the loosest scholarly opinion to suit this thesis..

------
stabbles
The suggestion is that any religion or movement having a theme of Light vs
Darkness has its roots in Zoroastrianism.

I guess it's hard to prove that this is the case. Could be a coincidence as
well. Such a theme is quite natural to develop in any culture in any moment in
time I guess.

~~~
giggles_giggles
The most ancient religion we know of, that of the ancient Mesopotamians,
featured a war between the god Marduk and the god Tiamet, who symbolize
light/darkness chaos/order etc, much in the way later religions do.

My personal belief is that the religions are all describing the same real
phenomenon: the way the individual draws order out of chaos to create the
world.

In the Mesopotamian myth Marduk (order/light) cuts up Tiamat (chaos/darkness)
and casts her pieces across the universe, creating the world.

In the Judeo-Christian myth Yahweh separates the earth (order) and the heavens
(chaos) to create the world.

I don't know of a religion that does not repeat this as a central theme.

Personally I see this as evidence that they were all describing the qualities
that the ancient believers saw embodied in their worldly heroes and
immortalized them through an oral tradition describing the modes of action (a
dramatization) which made those heroes admirable, and those phenomena thus
appear wherever there is an ancient myth.

~~~
jcranmer
> I don't know of a religion that does not repeat this as a central theme.

That's probably more because most major religions all arise from a rather
small geographic region (the Abrahamic religions from the Middle East, Iranian
religions (e.g., Zoroastrianism) from a little further west, and Hinduism,
Buddhism, and other Indian religions are only a little further west than
that), such that most religions you'd talk about in comparative religion
essentially arise from the same place and broadly the same basic tenants.

When you start looking in creation mythologies from indigenous peoples outside
of that small core region, you get far more diversity in the way they see
creation. Native American creation myths tend to focus on a cyclical view of
creation (i.e., this is not the first Earth to be created), for example, and
there's no clean delineation between good and evil or order and chaos.

~~~
giggles_giggles
Birth and renewal is another theme that is central in many religions. In
Christianity of course, Christ dies and comes back renewed. In Hinduism
reincarnation is a foundational belief.

This theme appears in literature as well: Harry Potter sacrifices himself to
the Basilisk (a snake, the dragon of chaos, who lives in the underworld
beneath the school) in the Chamber of Secrets and is renewed (born again) by
the phoenix (which is itself a mythological symbol of death and rebirth) at
the end of the second book.

The themes aren't always enacted as part of the creation myth, but are often
still present, and there's meaning in the reality that they appear so often
and so consistently throughout myth and literature.

That being said, I will admit that I don't know enough about the Native
American creation myths to comment on the way they approach good/evil and
order/chaos. I would be very surprised if these themes were nowhere to be
found within their myths, though, because the idea of the heroic individual
who brings order out of chaos and defeats evil seems to be a human universal.

------
baldfat
> but arguably introduced to mankind its first monotheistic faith.

As in no scholar in the discipline of Religion, Biblical Scholar or Theology
would state this as anything but a real stretch by someone not well informed
about world religions.

To say someone that we can't even give a date range of 500 years and we have
so much other evidence of other monotheistic religions and the time frame for
its development is put between 2000 and 4000 BCE. This is just poor academic
research.

------
rusk
Fun fact: Freddy Mercury was Zoroastrian

------
RRRA
And here I thought they would talk about objectivism...

------
gremlinsinc
I recall reading somewhere that Judaism may have believed in existence of
other gods...in genesis it says created in 'our' image, and I read some
theories once that the sumerian god Anu might have become Elohim or the God of
the jews...

I think the theory is that the god as well as the jews were outcasts and so
that god made the jews his chosen people, and wrought mighty miracles, and
convinced them that he was the only true god. or something along those lines.
iirc Sumerian mythology in terms of time-line has the oldest texts known to
man.

~~~
lapis_fenrir
When I was a child growing up in the Southern Baptist Church system, I
struggled with the paradox that the Christian God is supposedly the only god
that exists, yet in the Old Testament that same god clearly told his followers
that they should not worship "those other gods". I recall asking my pastor and
other church leaders, even my own parents, about this paradox and I received
non-answers, diversions, a lot of "gee, I don't know" or "you're right, that
is strange" responses, and was even totally ignored once by a pastor who was
visibly disturbed that a small child would dare ask a hard question.

Of course, as I got older and was exposed to the Internet I was able to
research the history of religion and break out of the bubble. I learned that
the Christianity of today is nothing whatsoever like early Christianity in its
infancy just after Christ's death, and a large part of what is taught in
traditional Protestant churches is wholly incompatible with his message. If
you follow his commandment that we "love one another, that is the fulfillment
of the Law", suddenly all of the _-isms_ have no place in a Christian's heart.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, all violate the creed of "love your
neighbor". Yet the most racist, sexist, phobic people I've ever met identify
as Christians; yet another paradox to ponder.

~~~
cat199
> not worship "those other gods"

there are plenty of texts discussing 'false gods' as well -

e.g. put all together: there is 1 'true god', the others are 'false gods', and
they should not be worshipped.

This base theology is very straightforward and consistent throughout the
hebraic scriptures, and also in the NT if you view from the various premises
of jesus messiahood in the gospels/epistles.

> what is taught in traditional Protestant churches

... Was invented ~500 years ago, and (imho) in reaction to other theological
(RC) and sociological shifts (embryonic capitalism), and so this is not at all
surprising...

> "homophobia"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Homosexuality_in_the_Pauline_epistles)

Dangerous words here, but disagreement with homosexuality is only
_automatically_ a "phobia" if one presumes disagreement to be 'denial' of a
'reality' out of a 'fear'; if one is ambivalent on this 'truth', there can be
'phobic' people and those that simply disagree.

Either way, quite clear from the canonical texts that sexual purity (of all
stripes - including heterosexual married couples) and ascetical purity in
general were part of "early Christianity in its infancy just after Christ's
death".. I will certainly agree however that what attitudes one takes towards
adopting this (humility vs pride), is another matter and quite often many
believers fall short.

Any doctrine can be abused to suit the ego gratification of its adherent -

Plenty of rabid and non-neighbor loving athiests, LGBT activists, libre
software coders, etc as well..

Conversely, broad statements such as 'love thy neighbor' can be twisted to
mean 'view anything as valid no matter what it says'..

it is in subtlety where the distinctions are found..

------
redsummer
I wouldn't be surprised if Zoroastrian Parsis had the highest IQ of any group,
even though I have no data to confirm that. Higher than Quakers, Ashkenazim,
Episcopalians and even Unitarians.

~~~
viewtransform
They are also good at arm-wrestling
[https://youtu.be/1jyyBkohi3Y?t=12](https://youtu.be/1jyyBkohi3Y?t=12)

------
mythrwy
I wouldn't call Zoroastrianism an "obscure" religion at all. The term really
doesn't fit.

Zoroastrianism was a major religion and the religion of one of the worlds
major empires years ago.

True it's declined and doesn't have many adherents today but the word
"obscure" just doesn't fit.

------
personjerry
My knowledge of Zoroastrianism came solely from Paradox Interactive games
(Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2)

------
idclip
1000-1500 bc,isnt judiasm ~4000bc?

