Talk:Zoroastrianism

proposed text for theology section
@Skyerise

I provided a text, based on your new added overview and have integrated some paragraphs from the theism subsection in this text too. this text should be added to "Theism" subsection:

Zoroastrianism is often regarded as one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world. Although Ahura Mazda is the supreme god, and Zoroastrians regard him as the creator of the world and their only God, Zoroastrianism believes in lesser divinities known as Yazatas, who are several kinds of positive spiritual beings that support humanity.” (ref: Ferrero and dorothea ludekens). These yazatas ("good agents") include Anahita, Sraosha, Mithra, Rashnu, and Tishtrya. Richard Foltz has put forth evidence that Iranians of Pre-Islamic era worshipped all these figures, especially Mithra and Anahita. (foltz ref)

In addition to this, Zoroastrianism believes in an evil principle whose origin is separate from God and acts in opposition to Ahura Mazda and his creation. This antagonist who is called “Angra Mainyu” or “the evil spirit” in the Avesta, is the embodiment of evil and his only desire is to bring disorder and destruction to Ahura Mazda’s Perfect world. (ref hintze)

The unique features of Zoroastrianism has caused Scholars and theologians to debate how best to classify Zoroastrianism theism, and according to Almut Hintze, “usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four). (ref hintze)

During 18th century, the Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world nearly for 75 years. (ref boyce)

During 1860s, Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas. (ref mary boyce)

The arrival of the German orientalist and philologist Martin Haug led to a rallied defense of the faith through Haug's reinterpretation of the Avesta through Christianized and European orientalist lens. Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia). (ref)

In 1912, George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religion, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. Further, He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine. (ref foot moore)

Later, Boyd and Crosby suggest: “that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy.” (ref boyd)

According to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, Schwartz defines Zoroastrianism as a Monotheistic Dualism, while Gnoli calls it a dualistic Monotheism; and Panaino, because of Ahura Mazda’s sovereign role in the religious system, considers Mazdaism to be Monotheistic. But Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between Asha and Druj, but not for that between the two spirits. (ref Hintze)

Prods Oktor Skjærvø states Zoroastrianism is henotheistic, and "a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, who is the father of the ordered cosmos". Other scholars state that this is unclear, because historic texts present a conflicting picture, ranging from Zoroastrianism's belief in "one god, two gods, or a best god henotheism.” (ref sk)

Dr Almut Hintze believes that Zoroastrianism has its "own form of monotheism" which combines elements of dualism and polytheism, and calls it Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. (ref hintze) It has otherwise been opined that Zoroastrianism is totally monotheistic with only dualistic elements. (ref)

Shernaz Cama suggests that the definition of dualism lends credence to the monotheism of the Zoroastrian faith. A basic definition of dualism is “a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil.” But Cama contends Zoroastrians believe in the supremacy of Ahura Mazda, for Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only God.

According to Ferrero, Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as the product of a separate entity from Ahura Mazda: an entity which will be destroyed at the end of the world, resolving the dualism. In addition to this, He interprets Yazatas as being roughly analogous to angels in Judaism or to the saints within Christianity, pointing out that these holy beings are subordinate to godhead. (insert ref) Researcher1988 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is a misapplication of Ferrero - the source is useful for describing the socio/political factors that led to transitions and transformations within Zoroastrianism; it is not an ideal source for describing an interpretation of Yazatas except in as far as he uses that description as a basis for exploration of the political and economic social factors at play. In other words use Ferrero in the context of what he was writing about rather than cherry-picking a description. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should swap "good agents" for "divinities worthy of worship and sacrifice" as that is one of the most accepted definitions. We should also mention something about there being three Ahuras. We should also shy away from using an economist as a source, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Jenny has sent me a nice source that seems to indicate that there is fierce argument amongst experts as to if Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this scholar in my sources too. however a great number of scholars have different opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ferrero is an expert on religious matters. he has several articles on religious subjects. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * His bio makes it seem he's just an economist. Please present evidence if he has more expertise elsewhere. 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at Ferrero's bibliography - he is principally interested in the political economics of religions mostly originating in a geographic range between Greece and India. The issue is not whether Ferrero is used but rather what he should be used for. The paper in question is being mis-applied. I know. I read it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My objection on that front is mostly because Researcher1988 demands that only truly focused scholars of Zor be included on the page, and I was trying to hold them to that. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree, Ferarro is not an expert on Zoroastrianism and we should certainly defer to the opinions of academics who study and teach Zoroastrianism, not an economist. I also agree that the paper does not support what Researcher1988 is attempting to use it to support. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to revert to 18 September 2023 version
I propose that we revert to this version of the article, from before began to edit it. It is a much more balanced presentation, and a better starting point for improving the article. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Edited) As Simonm223 says, the article is improving by leaps and bounds. There are sections that I feel we do need to drastically redo, such as the theology section - which should probably be organised into chuncks. Each with a rough timeline. I think we could also do more to document the lack of academic consensus on monotheism/polytheism etc. I would also suggest the controversial claims of influence toward other religions be made part of the existing section, and balanced against the newly uncovered evidence that it was most likely the other way around. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are probably right. We should move forward, but we might want to compare here to there in the process. Skyerise (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If we think about it, it might be a good opportunity to paint a more vivid picture as well. Perhaps by including broad-strokes summaries of some of the stories & characters etc. What do you think? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would prefer not to just roll everything back. A lot of productive changes have been made recently. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. I think I agree. I think the new parts that were added are a lot more accurate than what was there before, and that we can actually fix this article. 13:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Rough Timeline of Zoroastrian's Mutation
A lot of things have been bugging me about this religion for a while, and I think I've finally finished collating a timeline of events that point towards the true nature of Zoroastrianism and why we're having so much trouble categorising it. Please tell me what you think, but here's what I think happened. A lot of this is directly from this Wiki page: Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Zoroastrianism is massive a polytheistic religion based in almost pure oral tradition until the ~6th-13th centaury.
 * Islam arises and crushes Zoroastrianism. They have to pretend to be monotheistic to survive, and start equating Yazata with angels etc. Islam has a massive effect on the society.
 * Missionaries like The Rev John Wilson in the 18th-19th centaury cause a massive collapse in Zoroastrian confidence in their faith. They literally break the back of the religion, and cause them to start adopting Christian ideas into it (this kind of adoption of a dominant invading faith is a common factor in polytheism).
 * Other missionaries then document that the Zoroastrians are talking about monotheism.
 * Academics like Martin Haug speculate that Zoroastrianism is actually the original root of all the Abrahamic religions. To quote the wiki page: "Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia)."
 * Zoroastrians and Westerners then work together to turn the Avesta into a messy hybrid. Importing Christian words directly into the text, and concealing the true nature of Zoroastrianism beneath a thin skin of Christianity.
 * Modern Zoroastrians functionally grow up practicing a broken hybrid of both religions.


 * Be careful of WP:OR here - we want to communicate the present academic perspective on this rather than conduct our own historical survey. Do you have a source that lays out this timeline? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough @Simonm223. I wasn't suggesting we add any of that to the page, though essentially all of it is already there in a fragmentary form. My source here is actually, for the most part, the article itself as it stands. The theology section in the main part where I finally put the last pieces together. However; the sources we acquired recently that suggest the religion was mutated by Islam and the missionaries in the 19th centaury were the main part of this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Any idea how many Ahuras there are?
I suspect there's two, but the stuff I've found so far allege three. Are there any others?

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahura Mazda - specific in the text
 * Mithra - specific in the text
 * Apąm Napāt - at least according to his wiki page, but I can't find him referred to as such in the text.


 * I always thought that the Ahura were pre-Zorastrian and that Mithra was more or less a Roman attributation to Persian faiths, but not necessarily Zorastrian. However, I would like to use the oppotunity to throw in additional background information about later veneration of Devas among Iranians, since it might shed light on the nature of veneration of various spirits in Iranian thought: "Demonology & worship of Dives in Iranian local legend" by Reza Yousefvand. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They are indeed pre Zoroastrian, and they are in Indian and Iranian texts. They are also at least two Ahuras mentioned in the text itself, however. I think we need an entire section on all these characters so we can be sure we've gotten them straight. Thank you for the recommendation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, am I reading this right? I'm not sure about this being true. Though it may be they placate the dark god as the Egyptians did. "So we see  dualism  in  Zoroaster religious  that  they  worship both of the Ahura Mazda and devil. Demon  worship  never  disappeared  in  Iran,  in Zoroastrianism  worshipers  called  Div. (demon) as Daevayasna. According  to  Vandidad, worshipers met each other in Cemeteries and cryptand where to spend their  disgusting  ritual  meal  that  was  dead  bodies (Vandidad,  Fargard,  53-58  articles  and  Fargard  16, 17)." Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it is the only source covering this, I would be cautious. Though just because it is rarely covered, does not mean it is wrong. I would not put it in the article though, since the leack of coverage indicates a lack of notability in academic circles. But I thought it might be helpful to keep in mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle Yeah, I'm not sure about putting it in there either. I do keep hearing little hints that the Zoroastrians practice magic, but the only 'spells' I hear about are actually just rituals related to their good gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is some folkloric practise. Post-Islamic Devas/Divs (see also the Div (mythology)-article) became demonic entities all across Central Asia in general. Some of them may have a positive depiction as they were assimilated with other animistic spirits. However, the post-Islamic Divs are more of their very own unique concept and have not much today with the previous depiction of Divs as we find it in earlier (antuquity) sources. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly. It's likely very hard to say now because they have been so impacted by other cultures. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)