How did early Christians view Zoroastrians?

[Mr_Fanboy]

Well, I am actually less interested in knowing how the very earliest Christians viewed them as I am the Christians of late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, after they had become the dominant religious force in the Roman Empire but before the rise of Islam. I have at least a cursory understanding of how Christians of this era viewed Jews, European pagans, and, a little later, Muslims, and even how the different Christian denominations of this time viewed each other (for instance, Chalcedonians and Arians). But despite the long history of warfare between the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Zoroastrians of the Sassanian Empire, I know extremely little about how these two major monotheistic religions actually viewed one another. What was their relationship? Did Christians view Zoroastrians as simply heathens, or were their views a bit more complicated? How did these views compare and contrast with how they viewed Jews and Muslims?

To add an alternate history element, how might the relationship between these two faiths had evolved without the Muslim conquest of Persia? I offer two different scenarios...

1) The rise of Islam is entirely averted.

2) The early Muslim conquests still happen and are more or less as successful as they were in our world in the west, but the attempted conquest of Persia is largely a failure.

With Muslims as a perceived common enemy in the latter scenario, might Christians eventually develop a somewhat romanticized view of Zoroastrianism?

 

[Dfront21]

I believe @Philip would have some knowledge about this topic.

 

[Philip]

What was their relationship? Did Christians view Zoroastrians as simply heathens, or were their views a bit more complicated? How did these views compare and contrast with how they viewed Jews and Muslims?

It should go without saying that views varied over time, geography, and personality, but I'll say it just the same.

Most generally, Christian writers at this time tended to categorize religions/philosophies as either Christian, Jewish, and Gentile/Heathen. Christians could be further divided, particularly into orthodox and heretical. Obviously Zoroastrianism would fall into the G/H category.

As for specifics, Zoroastrianism doesn't seem to have been a major concern for the early Christian writers I am familiar with. What was written is, as you suggested, tied to politics as much as philosophy. Differences over asceticism was one point of dispute.

The fathers of the Church of the East may have written more debates or critiques of Zoroastrian thought, but I'm not as familiar with them.

I suspect that if Zoroastrian thought were more well known in the Roman world, we could see Christian writers praising specific Zoroastrians just as they did specific pagans such as Seneca.

With Muslims as a perceived common enemy in the latter scenario, might Christians eventually develop a somewhat romanticized view of Zoroastrianism?

Religious differences can always be overlooked by political powers, so such an alliance is possible. To me, that aspect is less interesting than speculating how Christian philosophers would react. I think a romanticized view is possible, but Islam might not be the best common enemy (for lack of a better term) to achieve it.

Samaritans might be a parallel here. In Christian thought they were often romanticized in contrast to Jews despite being theologically quite Jewish. The story of St Photini and the parable of the Good Samaritan were often used for justification. As a gross simplification, the argument went something like, 'The Jews were wrong to reject Christ, but they could have gotten it right. Just look at these Samaritans.'

A similar view could be developed for Zoroastrians. Identifying the Magi of St Matthew's account of the Nativity with Zoroastrians would give Christian writers a basis for asserting the possibility of righteous Zoroastrians. Other aspects could be exploited. For example, the Zoroastrian maxim of 'Good thought, good words, good deeds.' nicely parallel some classification of sins.


To make a parallel with the Samaritans work, I think Zoroastrianism would have to not be a political threat. It would also be easier if Zoroastrianism is more closely related theologically to the 'common enemy'.

Consider an ATL where Manicheanism was more successful and displaced Zoroastrianism in Persia. If this Manicheanism were making more inroads in Christiandom, Christian polemics might lament the destruction of the righteous (if flawed) Zoroastrians as a warning to Christians.

 

[Gukpard]

@Philip I got a friend who is beginning to study teology on the university and he came up with a theory that the three magician kings that visited Jesus on his birth were zoroastrian, as their gifts are usually seen as zoroastrian religious symbols due their focus on fire. Does that makes sense?

 

[Philip]

three magician kings that visited Jesus on his birth were zoroastrian, as their gifts are usually seen as zoroastrian religious symbols due their focus on fire. Does that makes sense?

That's not unreasonable as long as we remember the the relationship between the historical Magi and pre-Sassanian Zoroastrianism is not entirely clear.

The meaning of the gifts has been greatly debated by scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike. Much of the discussion (aside from the historicity of the event) focuses on what author intended us to learn. I tend to favor the theory that the gifts prefigure the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Assuming that Zoroastrianism as we know it, may be younger than Christianity, this may be a mute point.

 

[Dfront21]

Assuming that Zoroastrianism as we know it, may be younger than Christianity, this may be a mute point.

How so? The Parthians and Achaemenids didn't have the orthodoxy of the Sassanids, but they still worshipped Ahura Mazda and clearly the Gathas were known. Also, Sassanid orthodoxy is contemporaneous with the Byzantines.

 

[Philip]

How so?

I think @John7755 يوحنا is referring to @Gukpard 's proposal that Matthew's Magi be identified with Zoroastrianism. If they were Zoroastrians, they were not Zoroastrians as we know them. Arguments that they were Zoroastrians requires speculation on the nature of (the precursors of) Zoroastrianism in the first and second centuries.

 

[PBJ]

How so? The Parthians and Achaemenids didn't have the orthodoxy of the Sassanids, but they still worshipped Ahura Mazda and clearly the Gathas were known. Also, Sassanid orthodoxy is contemporaneous with the Byzantines.

Zoroastrianism as we know it today is very much a 19th century reinterpretation of the religion by Christian missionaries and orientalists like Martin Haug, rather than the religion practiced by the Achaemenids, Sassanids, et al. The original faith from it's earliest conception through the medieval period would have looked similar to monist polytheism, much like Hinduism, rather than monotheistic dualism. The lesser deities/angels of Zoroastrianism, the yazatas, are portrayed as unambiguously divine gods in the Younger Avestas, being anthropomorphic in form and analogous to the Hindu devas. Ahura Mazda is still around, but is seen as the supreme deity and creator god, rather than just the only god. Even in the 9th century AD hymns to the yazatas are portrayed very similarly to Younger Avesta.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

How so? The Parthians and Achaemenids didn't have the orthodoxy of the Sassanids, but they still worshipped Ahura Mazda and clearly the Gathas were known. Also, Sassanid orthodoxy is contemporaneous with the Byzantines.

The Arsacid era, however were less devoted to Ahura Mazda as a singular deity based upon inscriptions (not totally sure on this) and coinage than Assyria was to Assur or Babylon to Marduk. Yet we do not say, that Assyria and Babylon were monotheistic and practiced a monotheistic religion. The Sassanid era Zoroastrianism, did do much to dismiss Iranic polytheism that dominated society at least in centuries prior, but this was long after the rise of Christianity. In the time contemporaneous to the second century of Christianity, the enigmatic Kushan Empire, give only tiny reverence to Ahura Mazda, while other Iranic deities dominate coinage percentages and inscriptions (even dominating Buddhist iconography).

Anyway, to say worship of Ahura Mazda is some sort of evidence for a religion that we term as Zoroastrianism, is wishful thinking at best and at worse, a mimicry of Sassanid revisionism.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Zoroastrianism as we know it today is very much a 19th century reinterpretation of the religion by Christian missionaries and orientalists like Martin Haug, rather than the religion practiced by the Achaemenids, Sassanids, et al. The original faith from it's earliest conception through the medieval period would have looked similar to monist polytheism, much like Hinduism, rather than monotheistic dualism. The lesser deities/angels of Zoroastrianism, the yazatas, are portrayed as unambiguously divine gods in the Younger Avestas, being anthropomorphic in form and analogous to the Hindu devas. Ahura Mazda is still around, but is seen as the supreme deity and creator god, rather than just the only god. Even in the 9th century AD hymns to the yazatas are portrayed very similarly to Younger Avesta.

Possibly, this conception of Zoroastrianism is the only way I can imagine it having existed prior to the Sassanid period. The evidences against a monotheism or henotheism in the Iranian plateau, are far too great. As I said earlier, we have more evidences for a case that Marduk was a supreme ultimate god above all others, in Babylon than we do for Ahura Mazda being such in Iran prior to the Sassanid era.

The other option I might accept, is that Zoroastrianism, was some sort of small group that had conceptions of Ahura Mazda. This growing in Fars, became adopted as a unifying faith by the early Sassanid rulers. That option, would explain some discrepancies that exist in my scheme. Such as the figure of Kartir.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I think @John7755 يوحنا is referring to @Gukpard 's proposal that Matthew's Magi be identified with Zoroastrianism. If they were Zoroastrians, they were not Zoroastrians as we know them. Arguments that they were Zoroastrians requires speculation on the nature of (the precursors of) Zoroastrianism in the first and second centuries.

My skepticism is not the existence of the worship of Ahtar (embodiment of the flames) and the so-called Magians. We have wide evidences for this group in both the Arsacid and Kushan empires on reliefs, coinage and so forth. I do not either dispute Ahura Mazda’s existence in worship. Only the existence of Zoroastrianism...