Christian Persia! Look! Behold!

[Xocotl]

Okay. So. The Year is 4 BC, and Jesus Christ is born in the Persian province of Judea, aquired in the Persian-Roman War of 60 BC, which established persian dominance over rome.. He grows up and his teachings are mostly the same, and he is put to death on a not very cross looking cross. Zoroastrianism and Judaism influence Christianity.

The Council of Judea, 80 AD:
Rules That:
Ahura Mazda and Yaweh are the same entity.
Jesus is equally divine and human, and is the incarnation of god.
It is okay to pray in front of fire just as long as the person is using the fire as a symbol and is not actually worshipping the fire.
Established Darius I as the sucessor of Peter, with the papcy based at persepolis, which had a large christian minority.

As You can see Zoroastrianism has been influenced greatly by christianity. Christianity wasn't supressed in Persia, it merely blended wth other religions and traditions. It is supressed in Rome until 339 AD.

117 AD:
Iraj, Persian Emperor , converts to Christianity, making it official along with zoroastrianism. Christians have been preaching and converting in India.
200 AD: The number of Christians drastically increases in Rome. Most Arabs have converted.
339: Christianity no longer supressed in rome. Efforts to proselytize in China and southeast Asia begin.

The Story goes on... I'll add more later.

Map:


Innaccurate? Boring? Done Before? Great? Do You Approve Of This History?

First Post!

 

[Keenir]

Okay. So.

welcome to the forum.

The Year is 4 BC, and Jesus Christ is born in the Persian province of Judea, aquired in the Persian-Roman War of 60 BC, which established persian dominance over rome.. He grows up and his teachings are mostly the same, and he is put to death on a not very cross looking cross.

I have a feeling that there was a Roman holdout may've been responsible.
*evil grin*

The Story goes on... I'll add more later.
Map:

Innaccurate? Boring? Done Before? Great? Do You Approve Of This History?

First Post!

I look forwards to more.

 

[Philip]

The Council of Judea, 80 AD:
Rules That:
Ahura Mazda and Yaweh are the same entity.

There is a problem here: Angra Mainyu. In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is not the sole uncreated eternal being. Since Ahura Mazda is pure good -- nothing evil can come from him. Thus, Angra Mainyu was not created by Ahura Mazda. I don't think this is compatible with the Jewish concepts of YHWH. Perhaps something similar to Zurvanism would work?

Jesus is equally divine and human, and is the incarnation of god.

Is this meant to reflect Chalcedonian theology? If it is, it is a rather quick development.

Established Darius I as the sucessor of Peter, with the papcy based at persepolis, which had a large christian minority.

Ctesiphon was the capital of the Parthian Empire. Perhaps you should base your church there?

Innaccurate? Boring? Done Before? Great? Do You Approve Of This History?

A good idea, but I think it needs a bit of fine tuning.

First Post!

Welcome.

 

[Count Dearborn]

Joshua-ben-Joseph becomes the living incarnation of Mithras on earth.

Welcome, and run!!

 

[The Sicilian]

Welcome. You will never leave this place.

Good, but needs some fleshing out. Details, location location.

 

[B_Munro]

There's no "Persia" in 60 BC, it's Parthia.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia )

The Persian empire proper wasn't re-established until the 200s AD. I would suggest a "Alexander dies young" TL: the Macedonians peel off the western provinces of the Empire, but don't take the Persian heatland. Later, the Persians have a revival of sorts and retake the Levant from a decaying Greek dynasty in Egypt around 100 BC or so. There are a couple wars with Rome, but Persia is stronger than any of the Greek states OTL, and by the end of the first pre-Christian century a sort of wary detente has come into existence, although Egypt will swap hands several times over the next few centuries....

Bruce

 

[Analytical Engine]

There is a problem here: Angra Mainyu. In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is not the sole uncreated eternal being. Since Ahura Mazda is pure good -- nothing evil can come from him. Thus, Angra Mainyu was not created by Ahura Mazda. I don't think this is compatible with the Jewish concepts of YHWH. Perhaps something similar to Zurvanism would work?

What about a more influencial Gnostic movement?

Does it say anywhere in the Bible when God created the Angels?
If not, then there is no trouble.

 

[freivolk]

This is actally a scenario, which Oswald Spengler had big interest in. After Spenglers theorie oriental culture was through the roman empire pseudomorphed in the form of old antic civilazation. Without the Roman empire, the orient would go his own, entire unique way.

 

[Philip]

What about a more influencial Gnostic movement?

While this would help with the dualism, it does not solve the problem of creation. In gnostic philosophy, the creation of physical world is either a horrible accident or an evil trap. In Zoroastrianism, creation (at least Ahura Mazda's portion of it) is good.

Does it say anywhere in the Bible when God created the Angels?
If not, then there is no trouble.

To my knowledge it does not specify a time, but does attribute the creation of the angels to YHWH. In particular, see Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 148:2ff, and (from the Christian perspective) Colossians 1:16ff.

 

[Timoleon]

a better pod would probably be alexander's conquest imo.

 

[carlton_bach]

Actually, a Parthian control of Jerusalem is hardly that outlandish. All you need to do is change Roman policy a bit. Pompery's acquisition of the East was hardly uncontroversial. If the Arsacids arte perceived as either a viable counterbalance to the Ptolemies or as a 'safe pair of hands', they should be fine.

Starting a war against Rome in the first century BC, on the other hand, is not a good idea.

 

[Leo Caesius]

There is a problem here: Angra Mainyu. In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is not the sole uncreated eternal being. Since Ahura Mazda is pure good -- nothing evil can come from him. Thus, Angra Mainyu was not created by Ahura Mazda.

I'm not sure that the problem is as great as you present it to be. It is certainly true that the Foul Spirit Ahriman was not created by Ohrmazd, but it is an article of faith among Zoroastrians that he is not eternal, as there will come a time when Ahriman ceases to exist. This is mentioned explicitly at several points in the Bundahishn and the Denkard. Furthermore, he is always explicitly described as a spirit, not on the same level as Ohrmazd, but on the same level as Ohrmazd's first creation, Vohuman, albeit coeval with Ohrmazd himself. In Zoroastrianism, there is only one eternal uncreated omnipotent and omniscient being, and that is Ohrmazd.

I don't think this is compatible with the Jewish concepts of YHWH.

Well, the main obstacle is that Satan is created by YHWH, but the Satan of Judaism isn't exactly analogous to Ahriman either. Nor, for that matter, is the Satan of Christianity the same as the Satan of Judaism. Christian views of evil are actually much more in line with those of Zoroastrianism rather than Judaism.

In gnostic philosophy, the creation of physical world is either a horrible accident or an evil trap. In Zoroastrianism, creation (at least Ahura Mazda's portion of it) is good.

I'm not sure how much of an problem this will pose, either. Neither gnostic nor Zoroastrian philosophy is so clear on this regard, and neither is really set in stone. The Zoroastrian texts explicitly contrast the getiy (material world) with the menoy (spiritual world), the former being imperfect though not evil. It was created, however, as a trap ... for the Foul Spirit. All created things ultimately belong to Ohrmazd, as the Foul Spirit is incapable of creating anything; but this creation is imperfect, due to the Foul Spirit's malevolent influence in the material world.

As for Gnostic views of the creation, they are not uniformly negative. There are several accounts of the creation in the Ginza, and they vary in details, but the event is depicted as a positive or at worst a neutral event. In most Ptahil creates the world, occasionally at the instigation of his father Abatur, but cannot complete it without the intercession of either Manda d-Hiia or Hibil Ziua. Ptahil is punished in GR 15, but only because he creates the world of darkness for Ruha and the planets, in exchange for allowing them to be the stewards of the material world (a cautionary tale against the perils of outsourcing labor).

In any case, I think it's not only overly deterministic but even anachronistic to take these positions, which are after all the result of millennia of theological speculation and represent only one form of the religious tradition in question, and not only retroject them back into the period we're discussing here, but insist that they preclude any other possibilities. A syncretic religion of this sort isn't impossible, as you seem to be claiming, but I'm not sure how popular such a thing would be either.

 

[Philip]

It is certainly true that the Foul Spirit Ahriman was not created by Ohrmazd, but it is an article of faith among Zoroastrians that he is not eternal, as there will come a time when Ahriman ceases to exist.

Agreed. However, he is uncreated. I simply don't see that as compatible with the Judaic tradition.

Furthermore, he is always explicitly described as a spirit, not on the same level as Ohrmazd, but on the same level as Ohrmazd's first creation, Vohuman,

I must disagree with this statement. While Ahriman lacks the good quantities of Ahura Mazda, and this lack with ultimately spell his defeat, Ahriman is describe as Ahura Mazda's twin:

Now the two primal Spirits, who reveal themselves in vision as Twins, are the Better and the Bad, in thought and word and action. And between these two the wise ones chose aright, the foolish not so.And when these twain Spirits came together in the beginning, they created Life and Not-Life, and that at the last Worst Existence shall be to the followers of the Lie, but the Best Existence to him that follows Right.

Yansa 30:2-3
​

How is that going to be made compatible with Judaic traditions?

In Zoroastrianism, there is only one eternal uncreated omnipotent and omniscient being, and that is Ohrmazd.

It seems that you are trying to paint a picture of Zoroastrianism as being a monotheistic religion. I am sure you know that there is no consensus among scholars. Some (Dhalla and Henning come to mind) present the scriptures in a dualist light. Of course, others do show the scriptures as monotheist, some as both, some as neither.

It is true that there is one being in Zoroastrianism with all the traits you mentioned. However, it is also clear that the evil spirit uncreated, hidden in a pit of endless darkness until Ahura Mazda's creation awoke him:

Revelation is the explanation of both spirits together; one is he who is independent of unlimited time, because Ohrmazd and the region, religion, and time of Ohrmazd were and are and ever will be; while Ahriman in darkness, with backward understanding and desire for destruction, was in the abyss, and it is he who will not be; and the place of that destruction, and also of that darkness, is what they call the 'endlessly dark.

Bundahishn 1:3​

Further, Ahriman is credited with the creation of objectionable animals such as snakes and frogs (Zadspram, chapter 2, IIRC). Again, this is not compatible with the Judaic tradition of all things being created by YHWH.

​

Well, the main obstacle is that Satan is created by YHWH, but the Satan of Judaism isn't exactly analogous to Ahriman either. Nor, for that matter, is the Satan of Christianity the same as the Satan of Judaism. Christian views of evil are actually much more in line with those of Zoroastrianism rather than Judaism.

All true, but I am not sure what this has to do with my objection. I have no recollection of comparing Satan with Ahriman. I merely pointed out that Ahriman does not fit into Judaic tradition. Nothing in your statement changes that fact those from a Judaic tradition are going to have a difficult time accepting a second uncreated being who is, at least in part, responsible for part of creation.

All created things ultimately belong to Ohrmazd, as the Foul Spirit is incapable of creating anything; but this creation is imperfect, due to the Foul Spirit's malevolent influence in the material world.

Can you provide a citation for this? Me reading of the scriptures indicate that Ahriman did in fact create things, not just influence creation (See the citation from the Yansa above.)

As for Gnostic views of the creation, they are not uniformly negative. There are several accounts of the creation in the Ginza, and they vary in details, but the event is depicted as a positive or at worst a neutral event.

The Mandaeans are in the minority wrt gnostic views. This is one of the reasons I do not classify them with the gnostics. Further, I doubt AE had them in mind. Finally, I fail to see how the Mandaean viewpoint helps solve the problem of identifying YHWH with Ahura Mazda.

A syncretic religion of this sort isn't impossible, as you seem to be claiming, but I'm not sure how popular such a thing would be either.

Why do people feel the need to tell me what I am claiming? At no point did I say it was not possible. I stated that there was a problem of identifying Ahura Mazda with YHWH, and that I stand by that statement. The Judaic concept that YHWH is the sole uncreated being and created everything visible and invisible is not compatible the Zoroastrian teaching that there is a second uncreated being, Ahriman, who is responsible for part of creation.

Can you offer a way of overcoming that problem?

 

[Keenir]

Agreed. However, he is uncreated. I simply don't see that as compatible with the Judaic tradition.

Further, Ahriman is credited with the creation of objectionable animals such as snakes and frogs (Zadspram, chapter 2, IIRC). Again, this is not compatible with the Judaic tradition of all things being created by YHWH.​

some scholarly groups in OTL history have claimed that Satan did in fact create some animals...such as chimpanzees (Satan's attempt to make humans)

Finally, I fail to see how the Mandaean viewpoint helps solve the problem of identifying YHWH with Ahura Mazda.

Can you offer a way of overcoming that problem?

just a thought -- theological accomodation or disputes. that is, after all, part of the point of syncreticism, isn't it? (that the syncretic faith differs in spots from both parent faiths, but keeps evidence of its descent from both faiths)

 

[Philip]

some scholarly groups in OTL history have claimed that Satan did in fact create some animals...such as chimpanzees (Satan's attempt to make humans)

Good for them. How does that fit into the Judaic tradition of the 1st Century and identifying Ahura Mazda with YHWH?

BTW, can you give us some details on these groups? When? Where? Who?

just a thought -- theological accomodation or disputes. that is, after all, part of the point of syncreticism, isn't it? (that the syncretic faith differs in spots from both parent faiths, but keeps evidence of its descent from both faiths)

There is a difference between adapting beliefs or practices and altering the a central tenet of a faith. The Jews have quite a good history of sticking to the idea that (1) YHWH is the sole uncreated being and (2) he is responsible for the creation of all else. Care to explain why they would change their minds in this case? Just stating that 'the syncretic faith differs in spots from both parent faiths, but keeps evidence of its descent from both faiths' doesn't explain how it will happen.

If someone were to suggest a political union between the United States and the Soviet Union without offering any explanation of how they got past their differences, the idea would be dismissed as ASB. Why would two countries opposed on some very fundamental points suddenly join together? Likewise, proposing a religious union between two faiths that differ on a some very fundamental points, such as the nature of God, without offering an explanation of how it is achieved is weak AH. It is not that the problem is insurmountable, but it does need to be addressed.

So, the question remains: How do you identify YHWH with Ahura Mazda without running into a contradiction about the number of uncreated beings or the identity of the creator?

 

[Leo Caesius]

I must disagree with this statement. While Ahriman lacks the good quantities of Ahura Mazda,

It's more than just good qualities. He is neither eternal, as you have claimed, nor omnipotent or omniscient. These are all important things.

Furthermore, his name alone indicates that he is a spirit, like Vohuman, not on the same level as Ohrmazd.

He is most explicitly not worthy of worship. In fact, the only thing that he seems to share with Ohrmazd is that he existed from the beginning of time. That's certainly not enough to make him Ohrmazd's equal.

It seems that you are trying to paint a picture of Zoroastrianism as being a monotheistic religion.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of the religion as being anything but what it is.

I am sure you know that there is no consensus among scholars. Some (Dhalla and Henning come to mind) present the scriptures in a dualist light. Of course, others do show the scriptures as monotheist, some as both, some as neither.

This merely demonstrates that our traditional categories are of limited use when trying to describe belief systems, especially those that have evolved over long periods of time.

Can you provide a citation for this? Me reading of the scriptures indicate that Ahriman did in fact create things, not just influence creation (See the citation from the Yansa above.)

This is my impression from the Bundahishn. I'll find the exact reference for you later.

The Mandaeans are in the minority wrt gnostic views. This is one of the reasons I do not classify them with the gnostics.

I'm not exactly sure anyone has a good enough handle on gnostic views to make such a statement. You, in particular, have a very idiosyncratic classification. None of the other groups that we have identified as gnostic actually identified themselves as such (as opposed to being labeled as such by other groups, including their detractors). Furthermore, they are the only surviving gnostic tradition. Without them, we're entirely reliant upon texts, many of them incomplete, and the accounts of polemicists who had no reason to represent their beliefs accurately. Under the circumstances, I can't see any reason to exclude the one surviving gnostic tradition, and the only one that explicitly identifies itself as gnostic.

Find me one scholar - any scholar - who agrees with you on this regard, and I'll be very impressed.

the Zoroastrian teaching that there is a second uncreated being, Ahriman, who is responsible for part of creation.

If you're talking about the material world, then you are wrong. He can destroy things, tempt us into sin, and create fiends in the realm of darkness. Noxious creatures such as snakes and scorpions may belong to Ahriman but AFAIK they were not created by him (and certainly the Zadspram does not say that they were - merely that he found them on the earth when he assaulted it). The material world is Ohrmazd's creation.

 

[Keenir]

Good for them. How does that fit into the Judaic tradition of the 1st Century and identifying Ahura Mazda with YHWH?

which Judaic tradition? I'm sure the Sadducees and Essenes wanted to strangle one another (and the Pharisees) over doctrinal issues at times.

There is a difference between adapting beliefs or practices and altering the a central tenet of a faith. The Jews have quite a good history of sticking to the idea that (1) YHWH is the sole uncreated being and (2) he is responsible for the creation of all else. Care to explain why they would change their minds in this case?

actually, it wouldn't be the first time....in the 600s BC, in Egypt, there's a document from a Jewish family that says "Queen of Heaven" and "wife of YHWH"

Just stating that 'the syncretic faith differs in spots from both parent faiths, but keeps evidence of its descent from both faiths' doesn't explain how it will happen.

how did the Sikh faith arise? it combines elements of Islam with Buddhism.

If someone were to suggest a political union between the United States and the Soviet Union without offering any explanation of how they got past their differences,

Elizabethan England (Anglican-Protestant Christianity) gave serious thought to alliance with the Ottoman Empire (Sunni Islam) at a time when religious identity was a very real consideration for people and nations alike.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Incidentally, that passage you've quoted from the Avesta is evocative, to be sure, but how representative a view of 1st c. Judaism can we get from the book of Genesis?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Finally, apropos of the Mandaeans: you've called into question whether they are relevant to the issue at hand. I should think that their relevance is obvious. In case it isn't, however, I'll explain.

You cite normative Jewish beliefs to call into question whether a syncretic Irano-Semitic religion could arise during this period, with features common to Second Temple Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. I submit that one has. While it doesn't exactly fit the bill (Mandaeans reject Christ, and instead of Ohrmazd or YHWH they have another name, Hiia Rbia) but the fact that they did arise and still exist to the present day suggests that something similar is well within the realm of plausibility.

I think that the Mandaeans are therefore very relevant to the discussion, whereas for you they're merely not true Scotsmen.

As for whether the Jewish tradition of a single, primordial, uncreated being can be reconciled with the Zoroastrian tradition of two primordial beings - I am not sure that this would be the dealbreaker you imagine it to be for most prospective converts. Certainly Christ's followers were able to convert many people, both Jews and Gentiles, who came from communities with traditional beliefs not necessarily reconcilable with theirs.

There will undoubtedly be those who reject the new religion on grounds such as those you have raised, but then again, there always will be - certainly the existence of the Jews today proves that this ATL *Christianity need not satisfy all of the Jews in order to find broad acceptance.

 

[Xocotl]

Next

I really don't know much about Zoroastriansim...and yes, I think I will go with the Alexander dies early POD. The Persian empire survives, shrinks and weakens, but undergoes a revival when rome is beginning to expand to the east and becomes more dominant than rome.

The provinces of Persia and Rome in 1 AD:


Don't complain about my MS Paint maps.

Flag of the Pope, AD 200:


The Green Stands for god the father, fire stands for the holy spirit, and the SWASTIKA, an early christian symbol, stands for jesus as it is a cross and a solar symbol, or a star. Greater emphasis is placed on the star of jerusalem story, which represents jesus as the light of the world.

Udate on the council of judea:
One convert, a former zoroastrian, objected in saying that ahura mazda could have caused the existence of satan. the main body of the council responded by saying that god didn't try to create evil, but was brought about by the choice of one of his angels to do bad.

The Persians never sacked jerusalem, so the second temple remains in place. Some jews and christians, inspired by jesus, want to bring about another kingdom of isreal by peaceful means.

In the late 400s, there was another major war with rome. the reults of that will be posted tomorrow. (hopefully.) Also, in AD 440, the christian population of china reaches 2000. In 410, a christian kingdom is established in india.