Was Zoroastrianism a "pagan" religion?

I would imagine it depends on where exactly they end up. France and Spain would be quite hostile to Zoroastrians, I imagine, as certain aspects of that religion reek of the recently-crushed Catharist heresy. Other countries might be more tolerant--Poland-Lithuania in particular, as the prevailing ideology at that state's height held that the Polish aristocracy are more closely related to eastern steppe peoples like Persians and Turks than to anyone else, and some religious toleration was extended to those believed to share this ancestry (like the Lipka Tatars).

Though perhaps their presence would accelerate the development of Indo-European language theory, and maybe inspire some Pan-IE sentiment among the cultured classes.

Economics would also have a part to play in how they are received--the need to populate the more sparse parts of Europe east of the Elbe would create an incentive for toleration that is absent in France.

As to Zoroastrianism's relationship with Christianity, I'd say it's more like an uncle-by-marriage than a parent--Christian theology and philosophy also draws heavily on Hellenic sources, which I think play a greater role than do Zoroastrian teachings.

Interesting - I agree that the best case scenario for a Zoroastrian community that decides to settle in medieval or premodern Europe would be to follow the fate of the Tatar communities in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Finland.

I don't necessarilly agree that a Zoroastrian presence in medieval or premodern Europe would speed up development of Indo-European linguistic study, however, as the Roma people were also an Indo-Iranian-speaking community who originated far beyond Europe who lived there for many centuries.

I suppose it also depends on when the Zoroastrians enter Europe - The Parsis arrived in India over one thousand years ago, while the Iranis only migrated there in the last few centuries.
 
At least historically, the evidence suggests Zoroastrianism was polytheistic. I'm familiar with ancient Zoroastrianism more than modern practice, so anyone who knows a lot about the Parsis could fill in a few gaps.

Verethragna, Mithra, Anahita, etc. are called "yazatas" which meant "worthy of worship". The Sassanid ruler Bahram V was said to have "acknowledged only one God. The rest [i.e. yazatas] were but courtiers of the king." This indicates to me that monotheism was a late development, and was seen as unusual until later in the Sassanid era at least. Yazatas were commonly identified with Greek gods in the Seleucid and Parthian empires, as seen in Ardashir I's inscriptions.

The sources I am familiar with claim that monotheism was for the most part a response to Islamic rule. If anyone in this topic wants further reading, check out these authors:

Mary Boyce
Amelie Kuhrt
Ehsan Yarshater
William Malandra


(I did a research project on Zoroastrianism a few years ago, so I have a compulsion to pop in whenever topics on it appear) :)

That was my understanding too. I'm reading a book by Victoria Azad, the Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire. Are you aware of it?
 
I think there are Muslim scholars who consider Zoroasterism as part of "people of the book" (like Jews and Christians) but I'm not sure if that's a mainstream view, especially nowadays.

It's accepted consensus, albeit far less unanimous than it is the case for Judaism and Christianity. I am not going to check, but there is a relevant text that is, IIRC, ambiguous.
Note that Hinduism, which is (at least in common practice) markedly polytheistic*, was also widely regarded as a "religion of the Book" when Muslims ruled most of Northern India (they have a Book after all).

* Philosophical Hinduism as defined by schools like Vedanta is monotheistic, although in many cases the personal notion of divinity that is so central in Abrahamitic tradition is not very important (it exists, though). But it was never meant to be a concrete alternative to popular faith in gods (plural) even when Brahmins widely understood these gods as facets of the same and sole principle of divinity. A rough comparison could be made with Platonic, and especially Neoplatonic, understandings of Graeco-Roman pagan polytheism (and Plato was accordingly revered within all three main Abrahimitic faiths as "divine philosopher").
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In my opinion...


...the tricky bit is the incoherence of the term "pagan". It's basically a slur devised to refer to "Whatever isn't Christian" by the early Christians, so as a result it means "kind of polytheism, but also worshippers of one god if it's not our one". It's kind of like "Barbarian", which was similarly "people who don't speak Greek".

I tend to consider Zoroastrianism to have a similar fundamental break with polytheism as the Three Abrahammic Faiths, and arguably to be the oldest monotheism in any kind of codified form - the Torah wasn't compiled until the centuries AD, after all.
It also bears the unusual significance of being one of the first faiths to launch a crusade - that being, of course, the Persian Wars.


So I think that, depending on definition, it could be "pagan" - but it's the first non-Abrahammic religion that would be "non-pagan" as you narrow the meaning of "pagan".
 
That was my understanding too. I'm reading a book by Victoria Azad, the Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire. Are you aware of it?

I've heard of it, but haven't read it. Is it any good?

From what I remember, Zoroastrians were called "Magians" by Muslims, and mentioned alongside Jews, Christians, and Sabians. Whether the first Muslims considered them "People of the Book", I'm less certain about. Persia did not convert easily, since Muslim rulers complained about having to bribe their subjects to attend Friday prayers. The sacred fires burned for a few centuries after the conquest too.
 
I've heard of it, but haven't read it. Is it any good?

From what I remember, Zoroastrians were called "Magians" by Muslims, and mentioned alongside Jews, Christians, and Sabians. Whether the first Muslims considered them "People of the Book", I'm less certain about. Persia did not convert easily, since Muslim rulers complained about having to bribe their subjects to attend Friday prayers. The sacred fires burned for a few centuries after the conquest too.

Zoroastrians (questionable term) were clearly considered "People of the Book" in early Islam, although it is not entirely clear that early Muslims had a clear notion of what a "people of the Book" was (it was probably a different concept under, say, Mu'awiya than it would be later).
It is reasonably clear, however, that they were generally tolerated (but often despised).
 
I tend to consider Zoroastrianism to have a similar fundamental break with polytheism as the Three Abrahammic Faiths, and arguably to be the oldest monotheism in any kind of codified form - the Torah wasn't compiled until the centuries AD, after all.
".
While Zoroastrian beliefs are undoubtedly very old, remember that the Avesta wasn't codified until about the same time as the Torah. Indeed, the codification of both may well have been a reaction to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, that forced older faiths to define themselves more precisely against the relative newcomer, and to an extent, adopt the Roman/Christian definition of what a religion was and how it worked.
 
While Zoroastrian beliefs are undoubtedly very old, remember that the Avesta wasn't codified until about the same time as the Torah. Indeed, the codification of both may well have been a reaction to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, that forced older faiths to define themselves more precisely against the relative newcomer, and to an extent, adopt the Roman/Christian definition of what a religion was and how it worked.
Very true. And the very reason Christianity holds on to "pagan" beliefs is due to Zoroastrianism. Christianity borrowed and copied the ideas of duality of good and evil, the image of Christ as Zoroaster, and many other beliefs from Zoroastrianism. Originally Hell in Christianity was cold and blue, coming from a Jewish idea that the farther you are from the Lord the colder you are since there is no warmth of G-d. Because Zoroastrianism was heavily on fire as holy, the Christians made Hell full of fire. Christianity was using honey in one having their religion closely resemble Zoroastrianism, while at the same time having a stick in the other showing that Zs were "evil" by having fire in Hell and make it seem they were a perversion. Christian idolatry and having a pantheon of saints and angels and worshiping of a Trinity and the mother of Christ all come from Zoroastrianism pantheon that made it seem you can have "monotheism" while having a pantheon of lesser beings. Zoroastrianism can't be the oldest monotheism because they never took the step Judaism and Islam took to be true monotheists. While Z went one way and Christianity copied, Judaism went the other way towards true monotheism as a counter to Christianity, and Islam followed.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
While Zoroastrian beliefs are undoubtedly very old, remember that the Avesta wasn't codified until about the same time as the Torah. Indeed, the codification of both may well have been a reaction to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, that forced older faiths to define themselves more precisely against the relative newcomer, and to an extent, adopt the Roman/Christian definition of what a religion was and how it worked.

A fair point - should have remembered that, it's in Shadow of the Sword.
 
While Zoroastrian beliefs are undoubtedly very old, remember that the Avesta wasn't codified until about the same time as the Torah. Indeed, the codification of both may well have been a reaction to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, that forced older faiths to define themselves more precisely against the relative newcomer, and to an extent, adopt the Roman/Christian definition of what a religion was and how it worked.

From what I know about Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta was transmitted orally until being committed to text toward the end of the Sassanid regime. The religion of Cyrus differed greatly from that of Kroshau, which is not surprising as millennium separated the two.

However, the Torah was around well before the Christianisation of Rome! It reached its present form before the 3rd Century BCE, when we have the full Torah translated into the Septuagint, and most likely was forged out of older traditions around the end of the 6th Century BCE during and after the Exile in Babylon. The Talmud serves as a better analogue to the Avesta as it is a supposedly unbroken oral tradition from a prophet that was not written down until late antiquity and that set in stone the paradigm shift in Judaism from a Temple based cult to a Rabbinic one.
 

spendabuck

Banned
Here's my two cents - I'd probably say that nonpagan religions are religions that are organized; usually with scripture - Christianity has the Bible, Judaism has the Torah, Islam has the Qur'an, and Zoroastrianism has the Avesta. Another thing to consider that most nonpagan religions also have prophets - Christianity has Jesus, Judaism has Moses, Islam has Mohammed, Buddhism has Buddha, and Zoroastrianism has Zoroaster. Pagan religions don't have these - take Asatru (Norse paganism) for example; there isn't an Asatru holy book and there's no Asatru prophet, so it's considered to be a pagan religion. This can be applied to most pagan religions - Druidism, Wicca, Hellenism, Quetzalcoatlism, and other religions are also considered to be pagan.
 
Here's my two cents - I'd probably say that nonpagan religions are religions that are organized; usually with scripture - Christianity has the Bible, Judaism has the Torah, Islam has the Qur'an, and Zoroastrianism has the Avesta. Another thing to consider that most nonpagan religions also have prophets - Christianity has Jesus, Judaism has Moses, Islam has Mohammed, Buddhism has Buddha, and Zoroastrianism has Zoroaster. Pagan religions don't have these - take Asatru (Norse paganism) for example; there isn't an Asatru holy book and there's no Asatru prophet, so it's considered to be a pagan religion. This can be applied to most pagan religions - Druidism, Wicca, Hellenism, Quetzalcoatlism, and other religions are also considered to be pagan.

A couple problems there. Hellenism and the Roman equivalents had religious writings (Homer was worshiped with his own cult, and his Iliad and Odyssey were religious teachings) and they had prophets. Just about every religion has had it's prophets, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) had Deganawida (the Great Peacemaker) and Hiawatha as their versions of Isaiah and David. Just as Zoroaster, Muhammad, and Moses religions did not have written versions and organizations until after they had died, so too did the Five Nations have their national religion not codified... yet. European expansion ended the natural evolution of lots of proto-religions. The Mayans had writing, they had prophets, are they now not pagan under your definition? You need a better definition.
 
Very true. And the very reason Christianity holds on to "pagan" beliefs is due to Zoroastrianism. Christianity borrowed and copied the ideas of duality of good and evil, the image of Christ as Zoroaster, and many other beliefs from Zoroastrianism. Originally Hell in Christianity was cold and blue, coming from a Jewish idea that the farther you are from the Lord the colder you are since there is no warmth of G-d. Because Zoroastrianism was heavily on fire as holy, the Christians made Hell full of fire. Christianity was using honey in one having their religion closely resemble Zoroastrianism, while at the same time having a stick in the other showing that Zs were "evil" by having fire in Hell and make it seem they were a perversion. Christian idolatry and having a pantheon of saints and angels and worshiping of a Trinity and the mother of Christ all come from Zoroastrianism pantheon that made it seem you can have "monotheism" while having a pantheon of lesser beings. Zoroastrianism can't be the oldest monotheism because they never took the step Judaism and Islam took to be true monotheists. While Z went one way and Christianity copied, Judaism went the other way towards true monotheism as a counter to Christianity, and Islam followed.

I thought a good deal of the dualism in Christianity can be explained as the result of Neo-Platonism's influence on the faith rather than Zoroastrianism? What specifically came from Zoroastrianism? And can you give proof that the veneration of saints was because of Zoroastrian practice instead of "natural" outgrowth of local Christian tradition? And the example of fire seems a bit tenuous- fire has been important in the Abrahamic tradition long before Christianity, and it's been used as punishment and as a method of purifying/purging sin from the Old Testament onward- you can't really say that fire in Christianity was "evil" per se, considering during the Pentecost people were visited with the Holy Spirit when a great fire came from the sky.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
At least historically, the evidence suggests Zoroastrianism was polytheistic. I'm familiar with ancient Zoroastrianism more than modern practice, so anyone who knows a lot about the Parsis could fill in a few gaps.

Verethragna, Mithra, Anahita, etc. are called "yazatas" which meant "worthy of worship". The Sassanid ruler Bahram V was said to have "acknowledged only one God. The rest [i.e. yazatas] were but courtiers of the king." This indicates to me that monotheism was a late development, and was seen as unusual until later in the Sassanid era at least. Yazatas were commonly identified with Greek gods in the Seleucid and Parthian empires, as seen in Ardashir I's inscriptions.

The sources I am familiar with claim that monotheism was for the most part a response to Islamic rule. If anyone in this topic wants further reading, check out these authors:

Mary Boyce
Amelie Kuhrt
Ehsan Yarshater
William Malandra


(I did a research project on Zoroastrianism a few years ago, so I have a compulsion to pop in whenever topics on it appear) :)

Zoroastrianism like all religions have changed alot over the years. Zoroastrianism during the Achaemenid era is different from Zoroastrianism during the Hellenistic/ Parthian, which again differs from Sassanid Zoroastrianism, which of course differs from Zoroastrianism under Islamic rule.

Not an expert on Zoroastrianism but I buy the idea that the religion has changed over time, because all religions do.
 
I thought a good deal of the dualism in Christianity can be explained as the result of Neo-Platonism's influence on the faith rather than Zoroastrianism? What specifically came from Zoroastrianism? And can you give proof that the veneration of saints was because of Zoroastrian practice instead of "natural" outgrowth of local Christian tradition? And the example of fire seems a bit tenuous- fire has been important in the Abrahamic tradition long before Christianity, and it's been used as punishment and as a method of purifying/purging sin from the Old Testament onward- you can't really say that fire in Christianity was "evil" per se, considering during the Pentecost people were visited with the Holy Spirit when a great fire came from the sky.

What do you even call "local Christian tradition"? Christianity didn't spring naturally from one ethnic group like Judaism, Egyptian, Hellenistic, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism and Islam even. Christianity was a bunch of Jews and more importantly- newly converted to Judaism. They had a multitude of "local" beliefs, none of which were "natural outgrowth" that would have led to Christianity. Fire was not important in Judaism, there's no "Abrahamic" tradition other than Judaism as if Christianity or some other religion was always there from the beginning. Fire, other than for sacrifice, doesn't show up in the way you are talking about. There is nothing to purify with fire, as water and the mikvah serves that purpose, not fire. There is no "original sin" or any sin. There's simply- you broke the law. Deuteronomy is a list of laws from a specific kingdom, a national code, not a religious one. Judaism predates the concept of religion as separate from nationalism. The Torah is more like the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution on steroids, than a religious document. Christianity is nothing more than a light veneer of Judaism for show covering a depth of different substrates of every religion and pseudo-religious cult and philosophy that it ever encountered, there are no "original" or "natural" outgrowths from a pre-Christianity as there has never been a pre-Christianity.
 
What do you even call "local Christian tradition"? Christianity didn't spring naturally from one ethnic group like Judaism, Egyptian, Hellenistic, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism and Islam even. Christianity was a bunch of Jews and more importantly- newly converted to Judaism. They had a multitude of "local" beliefs, none of which were "natural outgrowth" that would have led to Christianity. Fire was not important in Judaism, there's no "Abrahamic" tradition other than Judaism as if Christianity or some other religion was always there from the beginning. Fire, other than for sacrifice, doesn't show up in the way you are talking about. There is nothing to purify with fire, as water and the mikvah serves that purpose, not fire. There is no "original sin" or any sin. There's simply- you broke the law. Deuteronomy is a list of laws from a specific kingdom, a national code, not a religious one. Judaism predates the concept of religion as separate from nationalism. The Torah is more like the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution on steroids, than a religious document. Christianity is nothing more than a light veneer of Judaism for show covering a depth of different substrates of every religion and pseudo-religious cult and philosophy that it ever encountered, there are no "original" or "natural" outgrowths from a pre-Christianity as there has never been a pre-Christianity.

Woah, calm down there. I just meant that people would venerate local saints, and I dunno how much Zoroastrianism would have to do with such a practice- wouldn't it just have happened naturally? Besides, could you elaborate on how the idea of saintly intercession is related to the worship of lesser deities in Zoroastrianism? I don't know much about Zoroastrianism and its relation to Christian doctrine, and would love to learn more about it. As for Old Testament references to fire, you have Sodom and Gomorrah, the flaming sword guarding heaven, the burning bush, etc. Seems to be plenty of evidence that fire is associated with the holy, even in Jewish scripture. I would love to know if this is a result of intermingling with Zoroastrianism, or was its own thing, as well. Perhaps someone qualified could shed light on this.
 
Woah, calm down there. I just meant that people would venerate local saints, and I dunno how much Zoroastrianism would have to do with such a practice- wouldn't it just have happened naturally? Besides, could you elaborate on how the idea of saintly intercession is related to the worship of lesser deities in Zoroastrianism? I don't know much about Zoroastrianism and its relation to Christian doctrine, and would love to learn more about it. As for Old Testament references to fire, you have Sodom and Gomorrah, the flaming sword guarding heaven, the burning bush, etc. Seems to be plenty of evidence that fire is associated with the holy, even in Jewish scripture. I would love to know if this is a result of intermingling with Zoroastrianism, or was its own thing, as well. Perhaps someone qualified could shed light on this.

That's the problem, Christianity has brainwashed society into overthinking everything on a metaphysical and holy point of view. Fire is used to destroy a city because how else are you going to? A flaming sword is just awesome and scary! The burning bush, it wasnt the fire that was the holy miracle part, bushes can be lit on fire and burn quite easily in a dry desert the holy part was that it wasn't consumed, a miracle! Fire isn't holy, except in that it was used to consume an offer a burnt offering.
 
Zoroastrianism like all religions have changed alot over the years. Zoroastrianism during the Achaemenid era is different from Zoroastrianism during the Hellenistic/ Parthian, which again differs from Sassanid Zoroastrianism, which of course differs from Zoroastrianism under Islamic rule.

Not an expert on Zoroastrianism but I buy the idea that the religion has changed over time, because all religions do.

I used Zoroastrianism as the example of how a religion changes over time in that project I mentioned earlier. :)

The Vendidad is one example; it was created by someone who was not a native speaker of Avestan (compared to say, the Gathas).

The funny thing about Zoroastrianism is that very few written records exist before the Sassanid era, because so much of it was oral tradition. Scholars of early Christianity have it easy by comparison. Zoroaster? I've read claims of him existing anywhere from 1500 BC to around 550 BC. The 1500 BC date is more likely because the Avestan language resembles the Rig-Veda. Zoroastrianism is a closer relative to Hinduism than to any of the Abrahamic religions (influence aside).

The pre-Sassanid records we do have (inscriptions, coins, etc.) often do not mention Zoroaster at all, and I suspect that there wasn't a written Avesta before the Sassanid period. Later Zoroastrians claimed that a golden Avesta was destroyed in the Greek conquest, but this is spurious, because Alexander is called a "Roman" in that source.

The Sassanids starting with Ardashir I used Zoroastrianism for propaganda against the Hellenizing Parthians that they overthrew. The Sassanids promoted the Zurvanist sect (to the point that at least one princess was named Zurvandukht). Later Zoroastrians called Zurvanism a heresy for placing a god above Ahura Mazda.

I hope this extra information helps.
 
Top