Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 6

Claim of Zoroastrian influence on later religions is a lie
The third paragraph reads - "Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam."

This is taking for granted the falsity of Jewish, Christian and Islamic claims about their own purity and authenticity and is therefore not neutral, not to mention false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychologicaloric (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Religious fundamentalism" is not listed on WP:Reliable sources, WP:NPOV, or WP:CITE as an acceptable basis for any claims here. Your own personal disagreement with almost all academia is not what the site runs on.  Even if your position wasn't completely opposite that of academia, you have yet to cite any sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Claim of Zoroastrian influence on later religions is not NPOV
The third paragraph reads - "Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam."

This is taking for granted the falsity of Jewish, Christian and Islamic claims about their own purity and authenticity and is therefore not neutral, not to mention false. Also 'Zoroaster's ideas' makes it sound as if he was the originator or owner of these ideas, which is again neither neutral nor correct. The ideas originated from Ahura Mazda through Vohu Mana and are therefore His ideas and not Zoroaster's. 'Zoroaster's teachings' would be much more suitable IMO. There needs to be some kind of correction here becuase as it is the sentence is a lie.

Psychologicaloric (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * New stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Again, leave your fundamentalism at the door. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is no more 'fundamentalism' than the reverts of all my edits have been. I am simply objecting to one particular viewpoint, which I know to be false, being stated as true while the consensus of the majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, including of course our 'academics' (and ulema and priests, etc.), is rejected. It is unfair to make such a bold statement about the Abrahamic faiths without considering the views of Abrahamic scholars. There is nothing neutral about this.

Psychologicaloric (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources. Cite them. If you don't have sources, we don't care.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WHY do I need to go hunting for sources to support a claim that is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Abrahamic faiths? Does REASON count for nothing? I have googled for sources but found none that would satisfy you because these are obvious truths that almost no Abrahamic scholars would go out of their way to point out, just like they wouldn't go out of their way to refute an assertion that, say, Hinduism or Druidism influenced their religions. I don't have any more time to waste on this, maybe I will get around to searching for these statements of the obvious eventually. Or maybe I'll just give up on Wikipedia for ever, this is ridiculous the amount of trouble required to remove one little lie. Psychologicaloric (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies on you for your claims. A lot of people who have studied both the Abrahamic faiths and Zoroastrianism can plainly see the relationship between the two: monotheism with ethical dualism, belief in a messiah figure and coming apocalypse...  Heck, the Christian Bible says that the first people to worship (the baby) Jesus were Magi, Zoroastrian priests.  How's that not a connection?  To say that no Abrahamic scholar would make a connection to Zorastrianism is just plain ignorant.  Perhaps it's for the best that you do give up on the site forever.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a relationship between the two, but there is no reason to assume that it consists of Zoroastrianism (or more particularly 'Zoroaster's ideas') influencing the later religions. And I'm 100% sure the Penguin encyclopedia has no proof for its claims (if this article actually represents its claims accurately). An arbitrary encyclopedia is no reliable source–– and Wikipedia is proof of this; how can I trust this article in my studies of Zoroastrianism when there is a blatant falsehood right at the beginning of the article? Anyways, thanks for demonstrating so clearly to me the unreliability of Wikipedia :). Psychologicaloric (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism were different!
For example, the Persian-Achaemenid Empire did NOT believe Zoroaster! (but they saw Ahura Mazda as their god...) / Zoroaster was from the Median Empire. Böri (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought. In Arabic Mazdaism المزدكية and Zoroastrianism المجوسية are considered two different belief systems, although they share some aspects. Nonetheless it seems wrong that Mazdaism currently redirects to Zoroastrianism.--Aa2-2004 (talk)
 * It may be possible to have separate articles, but it would require a number of sources about Mazdaism clearly distinct from Zoroastrianism. I don't know if I could help with that, because the impression I've gotten from my own reading is that after a certain point, Mazdaism as anything like an organized religion (as opposed to random syncretist incorporation into non-native pantheons) denoted only Zoroastrianism (not that I object to such differentiation, just that I'm not equipped to help).  According to the sources used in our Ahura Mazda article, it's actually debatable (i.e. not settled one way or another) whether or not the Achaemenids believed in Zoroaster.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014
Druj actually means "lie" and asha means "truth" see The Heritage of World Civilizations 9th edition by Craig, Graham, Kagan, Ozment, & Turner

JoshuaAB2000 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 12:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014
Please change the introductions' final lines as Judaism, Christianity and Islam is not influenced by Zoroastrianism. In-fact Hamza Bin Abdul Muttalib who was the brother of Prophet Muhammad's father destroyed the Zoroastrianism and their Zarthust's Chest.

85.194.97.49 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The statement is supported by a reliable source. Sam Sailor Sing 08:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dating
From the lead:''the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces ... in the 7th century BCE.''

I took this sentence as stating that Zoroaster's teachings (and hence his work and life) date to the 7th century, but the scholarly work that I am familiar with, as reflected in, for example, the Zoroaster article, suggests that he may well have lived much earlier. Should the statement be qualified in some way such as "not later than" or "or before"? Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Pantheism!!!
Quite frankly this assertion is a pile of bilge! It likely comes from an occultist or mystical source but certainly not a mainline academic source.

Zoroastrianism is unique in that Ahura Mazda unlike any God of other monotheistic religions is absolutely transcendent and is similar in that respect is a Deist concept of the divine.

To assert theism, panentheism or pantheism runs counter to everything that distinguishes Zoroastrianism from other religions.

If there are no objections I'll start working on a properly referenced clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really, saying that it is deism is much more likely to be false than pantheist. It would be more correct to consider it panentheism, with Ahura Mazda beeing the good aspect and evil beeing the ausence or corruption of good (druj). Deism would violate the zoro concepr of day of judgement, afterlife and prophecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.179.230 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014
To add the word "arguably" in the first sentence, so it would read: "Zoroastrianism.....is an ancient Iranian religion and a religious philosophy, and arguably the first monotheistic religion in the world....", as there are no source mentioned for the claim that Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion in the world.

79.179.181.217 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please read UNDUE and EDITORIALIZING. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014
The article says that Zoroastrianism was the world first monotheistic religion, however this is totally wrong. The Iranian prophet lived around the 6th century BC. Moses predates this man so how is Zoroastrianism the first monotheistic religion? Please correct this it would be more correct to say one of the first instead of the first. Thank You! 129.115.2.122 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014
It was not the first monotheistic religion, that was Judaism.

Jgayaldo (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Judaism is usually seen as one of a few surviving offshoots of the older Israelite religion (Samaritanism and Christianity being two others), and the Israelite religion before the Second temple era was probably Henotheistic. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism"

Certainly Judaism and its monotheism predates the 6th century BCE. Supporting statements for Zoroastrianism predating "Judaism" above are speculative. Also, Christianity and Samaritanism themselves were offshoots of a religion clearly identified as Judaism, not a common ancient Israelite religion. To preserve this statement without evidence or reject the addition of qualifiers as "undue or editorializing" shows bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.90 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, if you actually read this discussion, you'd've seen that I already answered that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of you editing your position: the pages I summarized and linked to cite sources for those claims. Please cite a reliable source for your claims.  Again, the academic consensus is that the modern religion Judaism dates to the second temple period, as the central branch of the Israelite religion.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian, thank you for your welcoming and polite comment. I am new to this tool and do not know how to edit inline, nor did I see the bottom section when posting my own. Hopefully you will agree that your use of the term Judaism, as well as the reference in the article, are ambiguous and arbitrary. Do you mean to suggest that there was nothing known as Judaism prior to Second Temple Judaism? Can you cite the exact moment when Judaism would be universally acknowledged as monotheistic, or only provide an upper bound that is roughly at the 6th century BCE? Unless the author can, statements should be qualified or removed, rather than insisting on citations to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.90 (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check the articles I linked to, you'll see that prior to Second Temple Judaism, the Israelite religion was probably henotheistic, and during the Second Temple period, there were a number of different groups that died off, or evolved (with some merging between groups) into Judaism, Christianity, and Samaritanism. And asking for exact moments in the bronze age is often like asking someone to find a dark grey needle in the night sky.
 * And because there are citations for current article material, you do need sources to the contrary. Even then, it probably won't result in the removal of the statements you have an issue with, that position and yours will be presented as different claims.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014
There is a serious problem with the article. It is the last sentence of the opening paragraph. Of course I really don't expect, much being that Wikipedia is known for bias as pretty much everything written is, but that does not give us a reason not to be objective about writing. That being stated, I have a riddle how does a man that lived around the 6th century b.c. have any influence on a man that lived around 1000 years prior to him? Answer, he does not. Just because one quotes a source from penguin does not mean the source is true. Stop trying to say this faith came before Judaism and had any influence on it, the simple dates and numbers don't add up. That being stated Christianity was influenced by Judaism and not only influenced by Judaism but sprang forth from Judaism. So tell me how Zoroaster influenced this faith? Answer he did not. You can see the logic can't you. So I really don't have to waste time and effort on the Muslim faith do I. So why am I writing this way, because this is the second time I requested something be done yet nothing happened. The first request was very similar to this in that I called the original writer of the article out yet somebody had to insert their opinion on the second edit. Why don't people just study and be real with the historical documents and not state things that are clearly bogus. Of course I do not expect this to be changed until weeks later why??? Because people want to push fake data instead of real data. Whatever. On the slight chance somebody actually looks at the data objectively and not come to bogus conclusions and post the truth. I applaud you! If not o well. Back to the drawing board.

75.1.185.210 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Great enthusiasm, but it would be easier to handle if you backed it up with sources and stated exactly what you believe should be changed. Did you consider creating an account? Sam Sailor Sing 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to believe that Zoroaster lived in the 6th century BC. He probably lived considerably earlier than that. In any case, the arguments about the influence on Judaism concern the period when Israel/Judea was part of the Persian empire, and the emergence of forms of apocalyptic literature which contain concepts quite different from those in the Torah, such as the idea of an "evil" Satan and his minions in some kind of eternal struggle against God. This is quite mainstream, and has nothing to do with bias in Wikipedia. It is easily cited to scholarly sources. None of this has anything to do with the "Muslim faith". The only connection is that Persian Shiite Islam was influenced by Zoroastrian traditions. And, of course, it is worth adding that most scholars do not believe that the Torah was written by Moses (I assume he's the person you mean by the "man that lived around 1000 years prior to him"), but rather that it dates from various periods, including the post-exilic era. See the entries on the Book of Genesis and Book of Exodus, for example. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014
Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.[6]

79.183.181.219 (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Aaaand? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

What exactly is "Zoroastrianism"?
(to an extent, a continuation of the section preceding this one)

The discussion of the section preceding this one exposes a fundamental problem with the article, which is that -- as a collaborative effort -- editors are muddling disparate sources without any real understanding of the scholastic issues behind them. In reality, there are several different academic perceptions of what "Zoroastrianism" is, and "sticking to academic sources" is not particularly useful unless one is also aware of the context within which a source is writing.

The definition of "Zoroastrianism" is tied to the history of the _study_ of "Zoroastrianism". Like the terms "Judaism", "Hinduism", and the other "-isms" (which I'll call civil religions for simplicity), the term "Zoroastrianism" is a modern invention. However, unlike the terms for "Judaism", "Hinduism" and the other civil religions (Greek/Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc, etc), the term "Zoroastrianism" is -- for better or for worse -- tied to a particular individual, Zoroaster, and accordingly pivots with the academic perceptions of that figure.

There are (roughly) four academic perceptions of that figure: As far as scholars of Iranian religion and culture are concerned, the Swedish house of cards collapsed long ago (a key instrument in that collapse is Henning's /Politician or Witch Doctor?/, 1951). Although dead as a doornail by the 1970s (excluding Widengren, who continued to defend it until his death), its effects survive to the present day on book shelves, and the Internet, both of which are littered with it. Red flags for a Swedish school influenced text are mentions of Zoroaster in conjunction with the terms "Mithra" or "Anahita" or "haoma" or "reform(er)" or "Iranian paganism". BUT: Although Swedish school theory ruined Nyberg's repution (as it did Herzfeld's for his 800-page covert rebuttal of Nyberg), and seriously tainted Widengren and Wikander, some of their contributions remain valid. However, I doubt that an ability to distinguish the wheat from the chaff can be obtained by searching Google books. But aside from the difference of "contribution to" rather than "invention of", progressive hypothesis is more or less in agreement with Lommel school. Common to both are a) they take syncretic influences seriously, in particular recognize the interaction with Semitic (Akkadian, Sumerian, Babylonian, whatever) and Hellenistic beliefs that unquestionably influenced Western Iranian (i.e. "Persian") beliefs and vice-versa b) they recognize that "Zoroastrianism" (whatever the definition) is historically not as coherent or uniform as the mediated form suggests (mediated by a "Sassanian church"? - which may or may not have actually existed). Although newer than the other theories, progressive hypothesis has its critics as well, most notably Jean Kellens who insists on linguistics as the solution to all unknowns. What this too-long monograph should tell the reader is this: Google Books is not a good way to obtain a coherent understanding of a religion. And: the scholastic issues are complex; evaluating the quality or context of a source is not for beginners. -- 77.183.191.30 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "constituent hypothesis", which developed in the 17th century out of Thomas Hyde's seminal translation of the "Zoroastrian" texts at his disposal perceives Zoroaster in terms of the Greek tradition, which in turn perceives Zoroaster as "founder of the religion of the Persians". This 17th century attitude is the origin of the term "Zoroastrianism", by way of analogy to "Christianity". This analogy is now known to be inappropriate, but that's the way the cookie crumbled in 1700. Thomas Hyde's translations and commentaries were formative for the western reception of "Zoroastrianism", down to the late 19th century, when (ironically) the Indian Zoroastrians resorted to Voltaire and Payne (both influenced by Hyde's (Christian) apologetic treatment of the texts) to defend themselves against John Wilson's and other Presbyterian polemical attacks on their faith. Wilson's principle charge was that Zoroastrianism was merely primitive "polytheism", and that this was (somehow) less worthy than Wilson's own "monotheism". For this, and with no theological-exegetical tradition of their own the Indian Zoroastrians turned to Martin Haug, a German lecturer at Poona University, who had translated the Gathas in a manner that -- in classical Hyde school approach -- made Mazda the creator of everything, not just the good, but the creator of evil as well. Despite this being contrary to their own tradition, the Indian Zoroastrians eagerly picked up on Haug's translation, which in turn made it to the west, thus supposedly corroborating Haug's translation. In this sense, the effects of constitutent hypothesis are still evident today.
 * The second approach, "reform hypothesis", takes two forms:
 * Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't even mention the first form, but someone in the section above is citing a source that is tainted by it, so here goes: The older reform hypothesis is "Swedish school" theory, also called Männerbund theory (and a host of other impolite names), first developed in the 1910s at Uppsala University, where it was promoted by Henryk Nyberg and his students, most prominent among them Geo Widengren and Stig Wikander. As the term "reform hypothesis" indicates, the Swedish school perceived Zoroaster as a "reformer" of Iranian "paganism", which Swedish school theory goes to great lengths to "reconstruct". By modern academic standards, Swedish school theory is bad science, heaping speculation on speculation, all the while resting on the now-infamous ex-silencio notion that since Zoroaster's Gathas do not mention any other gods (by name) other than Mazda, Zoroaster "must" have rejected them. And so on it goes: Zoroaster says he was not well received, ergo, the bad reception "must" be because the others were followers of those gods that Zoroaster does not mention. Zoroaster condemns the cattle raids that trouble his people, ergo, those cattle raiders "must" be followers of those gods that Zoroaster does not mention, and since the raids are nocturnal, the gods "must" be nocturnal too. And so on and so forth in the same vein, an entire "reconstruction" of what Zoroaster supposedly "reformed", based entirely on conjecture and from "evidence" derived through highly creative translation and interpretation of Avestan sources.
 * "Lommel school" theory is the younger reform hypothesis, developed (as a reaction to Swedish school theory) by Hermann Lommel and subsequently followed by Ilya Gershevitch, Gherardo Gnoli (earlier also Swedish school), Ugo Bianchi and others. This form of reform hypothesis treats Zoroaster as a 'religious genius', and Iranian religion in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In this framework, Zoroaster's ideas expressed in the Gathas are the thesis, the antithesis is the reaction to it as evident in the younger Avesta, and the synthesis is the merger of the two that developed under the Sassanians. (Gershevitch calls these stages Zarathustrianism, Zarathustricism and Zoroastrianism). Unlike Swedish school theory, which turned Zoroaster into a haoma-addicted shaman, Lommel school portrays Zoroaster as a rationalizing, intellectual poet-priest. Unlike Swedish school, this reform hypothesis does not attempt to reconstruct a new "pre-reform" religion based on Zoroaster's supposed reaction to it, but rather perceives the younger Avesta to be descriptive of "pre-reform" religion (Younger Avestan is not a continuation of Old Avestan; its not only younger, its an independent dialect). Also unlike Swedish school, which tries to explain everything in Indo-Iranian terms, Lommel school takes foreign influences into account (Babylonian, Hellenistic, etc). Also unlike Swedish school, Lommel school theory has a very sound linguistic and philological basis, and Lommel's own translations remain standard reference works even today.
 * progressive hypothesis is an anthropological approach that developed in the 1950s (became widespread in the 1980s). In it Zoroaster is neither a Pauline revolutionary as seen by the constituent hypothesis, nor a religious genius (Lommel school) or mystic shaman (Swedish school). Instead, progressive hypothesis treats indigenous Iranian religion as a continuous line of developments from ancient times to the present, to which Zoroaster contributed an ethical and moral dimension along the way. The extent of that contribution varies from writer to writer, but all proponents agree on _contribution_ rather than some sort of radical cut with what went before it. For most scholars (notable exception is Boyce, who is a principal proponent of progressive hypothesis but also follows Gershevich's "religious genius" portrait), a progressive approach incidentally avoids a key problem with reform theory, viz., the question of how Zoroaster could manage to convince a far-flung nation of farmers and herdsmen of his vision.

Recent changes
I have reverted recent changes by, in particular the change from free will to choice, that did not cite any sources. Noting this here so that sources can be produced to determine what should be kept from those changes and what is better as it is. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this article has been stolen by the atheist trolls
The title says it all. 186.203.220.66 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The title? What else would an article on Zoroastrianism be called? Paul B (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear the OP is blinded by fanaticism and has a faith so weak and unstable that it cannot be balanced by (not with, by) reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say while not understanding the original post fully, the latest post itself is quick to make judgement about the first editor. One would assume at least a semblance of professionalism, the original post and the accusation of fanaticism and weak faith with lack of reason. Do you really need to see why assuming all that also makes it unprofessional or academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.168.225 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to even follow what you are trying to say. The second sentence appears to be ungrammatical. The last one makes no sense at all, as it is unclear what "it" refers to. Either make a coherent point about content or don't contribute at all. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Judaism and Zoroastrianism
"Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam."[4]

Judaism is not a "later religion" than Zoroastrianism, which the above statement proports. BBC states that Judaism was founded "over" 3500 years ago, as seen below...

"Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions and was founded over 3500 years ago in the Middle East." BBC © 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.200.94.20 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

P.202 of Boyce does not discuss Judaism at all. The closest mention of Judaism (p.194-195) does NOT discuss influence of Judaism on Zoroastrianism, but the other way around. It barely mentions Christianity's much later influence on modern Zoroastrianism. Page 202 discusses influence only so far as the increased role of Anahita. It is WP:UNDUE weight to pretend Boyce justifies the appearance of equal influence onto Zoroastrianism.

The second source, Peter Clarke, which has the context completely chopped up, only says "There are so many features that Zoroastrianism seems to share with the Judeo-Christian tradition that it would be difficult to ... Historically the first point of contact that we can determine is when the Achaemenian Cyrus conquered Babylon ..539 BC." There is absolutely nothing in there saying that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Judaism, only that there are shared traits, only stating that the first point that one religion could have influenced the other (without saying which influenced which) was 539 BC.

This is going beyond WP:OR into dishonest stubbornness. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there was three sources presented there. The two which I added both discuss possible cultural interchange between the faiths. This theory is one without much evidence as it stands, and only states the possible influence of both faiths on each other when they came into contact during period of Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenid Empire. Cyrus is described in many sources, Bibilical and non-Biblical, as being a tolerant leader of minority groups in his empire. He is known to have allowed the Jews in Babylon to have returned to Judah. Judaism pre-dates Zorastrianism by around 1000 years. The existence of a strong monotheist current in the Kingdom of Israel, and later Judah, is known from the Biblical accounts (and specifically with the conflict between this group and polytheist elements within ancient Israeli society. The first recorded mention of the existence of any Zoroastrians or their religion isn't until the 6th century BCE, interestingly right around the time Jewish elites were forced into exile in Babylon.


 * I included these sources because the article as it stands has an unbalanced perspective that only Zoroastrianism influenced subsequent faiths (i.e. the influence was unidirectional), which is unsupported. I only wish to help clarify the situation by merely stating how there is a theory that some shared traits between the faiths may be due to an exchange of ideas if Judaism came into significant contact with Zoroastrianism.


 * I personally believe that either Zoroastrian texts borrowed significantly from Christianity at a later date, or that Judaism had the influence on Zoroastrianism, given the older age of Judaism, as well as the later highly strict monotheism that developed which is the basis for the other major monotheistic faiths. Additionally, Zoroastrianism is much more dualistic, and has texts which contain elements of polytheistic worship to other deities simply not found in Abrahamic traditions. In Zoroastrianism's texts for example, Zoroaster prays to other ancient Iranian deities/divinities to interfere in worldly affairs. There is a plethora of divinities (known as Yashts) found throughout the texts corresponding to different elements of the natural world (animals, water, fire, etc.), just as in many polytheistic and animistic traditions - nothing like this is found in the Abrahamic traditions. Epf (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is one source from the Jewish Encyclopedia which essentially sums up some of the debate on the cultural contact between Judaism and Zoroastrianism which has resulted in the shared traits between the two. There are essentially two radical ends to the argument, with each favouring the influence of one faith on the other, and a third moderate argument stating an equal influence (or an influence from a third, unknown source):


 * "It is difficult to account for these analogies. It is known, of course, as a historic fact that the Jews and the Persians came in contact with each other at an early period in antiquity and remained in more or less close relation throughout their history (see Avesta; Media; Persia). Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians. But, on the other hand, the late James Darmesteter advocated exactly the opposite view, maintaining that early Persian thought was strongly influenced by Jewish ideas. He insisted that the Avesta, as we have it, is of late origin and is much tinctured by foreign elements, especially those derived from Judaism, and also those taken from Neoplatonism through the writings of Philo Judæus. These views, put forward shortly before the French scholar's death in 1894, have been violently combated by specialists since that time, and can not be said to have met with decided favor on any side. At the present time it is impossible to settle the question; the truth lies probably somewhere between the radical extremes, and it is possible that when knowledge of the Assyrian and Babylonian religion is more precise in certain details, additional light may be thrown on the problem of the source of these analogies, and may show the likelihood of a common influence at work upon both the Persian and Jewish cults."

Epf (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia is hardly an unbiased source, any more than ther Catholic Encyclopedia is. Here are some other sources which argue that Persian Zoroastrian ideas defined the form of Jewish monotheism:


 * T. L. Thompson, “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine, ”The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edelman; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 107–26.
 * Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 358–63.
 * The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformations of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; OTS 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Text says that "the emphasis on a single divine power of good in Zoroastrianism has been thought to provide a model for the monotheism expressed in the Bible", though he thinks there are significant differences between biblical monotheism and Zoroastrianism because "biblical monotheism appears to represent, at least in its formulations, developments of older language exalting the national god." In other words, it's not based on an abstract principle of the "good". He argues that "internal and external changes in Judah's situation in the seventh and sixth centuries" correspond to the emergence of monotheistic language in the post exilic period (p.166)

The principal argument that is presented is that both Zoroastrianism and pre-Exilic Judaism have a notion of exclusive devotion to a particular god, but that the idea that this God is the only "real" God is an evolution of devotional "monolotry", and the idea that this god is equated with "goodness" shows the influence of Zoroastrian ideas. Whether that's true or not, of course, is another matter, but it's not a simple question of some argument about who "came first". See also the section above this one. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you personally consider the Jewish or Catholic encyclopedias "biased" sources is irrelevant, but they both provide evidence for arguments showing the borrowings of Zoroastrianism from elements of either Judaism or Christianity, or both. Both the Catholic and Jewish encyclopedias are valid sources under Wikipedia policy, and arguments from both deserve to be entered here, as do the sources you just provided. The earliest Zoroastrian scriptures are dated quite late, 3rd century AD the earliest (with most from much later centuries), when compared to Christian and especially Jewish texts.


 * Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:


 * "In the ancient Persian religion (Zoroastrianism, Mazdaism, Parseeism) we meet with what is perhaps, in its better elements, the highest type of ethnic eschatology. But as we know it in the Parsee literature, it contains elements that were probably borrowed from other religions; and as some of this literature is certainly post-Christian, the possibility of Jewish and even Christian ideas having influenced the later eschatological developments is not to be lost sight of." Epf (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Zoroastrianism's elements of polytheism also cannot be ignored, which are retained in the faith's scriptures and are simply not present in the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, especially Judaism and Islam. Such polytheistic elements are understandable given the religion's ties to the Historical Vedic religion of the nearby Indus Valley civilization, which was in very close proximity to where Zoroaster is believed to have been from in what is now northeastern Iran and northwestern Afghanistan. For example, Appleton (2005) states that according to Yasnas 5 & 105, Zoroaster prayed to Anahita (a goddess of the Iranian polytheistic pantheon) for the conversion of King Vištaspa. The religion to this day contains a plethora of various divinities, known as Yashts, with many highly animistic in nature. Epf (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As you have been told before, Appleton mentioning Anahit does not mean you can add the word "polytheism" without it being original research, otherwise we have to call most of Christianity polytheistic because of the Intercession of saints, and Judaism and Islam because of the angelic invocations found in Merkabah mysticism and Simiyya. The majority of sources describe Zoroastrianism as monotheistic, and that's how Wikipedia is going to describe it as well.  Your claims of polytheism appear to be nothing but revived 19th century sectarian slander by missionaries.
 * Also, your claim that the Zoroastrian scriptures are from the 3rd century AD at earliest is backwards in every single way. The Avesta's manuscripts are from the 3rd century AD at absolute latest (due to Avesta being extinct except as a ritual language by then, and being way too similar to Vedic Sanskrit to have come about millennia later), unless you're going to make the sort of asinine assumptions about "no work is older than its earliest manuscript" sort of deal that would mean that the Christian Bible wasn't written until the fourth century (something we both know isn't right), and no one started composing the Jewish Bible until the second century BC (again, something we know isn't right).  The Avesta dates back to at least two hundred years before the Achaemenids, if not the second millennium BC.
 * And per most of the sources we have in articles such as Origins of Judaism, Judaism was one of the religions that evolved out of the Israelite religion around the Second Temple period, with the religion moving from a henotheistic form that bore more resemblance to the Canaanite religion to something we'd recognize now as Judaism mainly after the Babylonian captivity.
 * For more:
 * "In the Hebrew scriptures, we find a theological image of God rooted in the social structure of Israelites monarchy. Since this is a monarchy confined to a single ethnic group, the image of God is one of henotheism rather than monotheism"
 * "In all likelihood, Hebrews of the patriarchal period (second millenium B.C.E.) as well as many first-millenium Israelites and Judeans were not markedly different from many of their polytheistic neighbors... Most scholars conjecture that ancient Israelite-Judean religion (the practices and beliefs of the actual inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the first millennium B.C.E.) was at the most monolatrous (promoting teh worship of one God, Yahweh, without denying the existence of other gods) rather than monotheistic (asserting the reality of one god only)."
 * "That ditheism and polytheistic Yahwism were later condemned by monotheistic Yahwists does not indicate that nonmonotheistic Yahwism necessarily constituted "Canaanite syncretism" or "popular religion," tainted by Canaanite practices and therefore non-Yahwistic in character." The rest of the work discusses the gradual movement from henotheism to monotheism from the time of the Judges to the Babylonian exile, rather early claims.
 * "Striking affinities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism have been noted by others. ... Much of Judaism's affinity with Zoroastrianism appears in its apocalyptic texts, and it has been suggested that Iranian ideas "propelled" Jewish apocalyptic thought..." Also cites Boyce, Collins, and the demon Asmodeus, which everyone accepts is derived from the Persian Aeshma Deva.
 * "At present, it seems that Jewish tradition was influenced more by Persian culture and Zoroastrianism than the other way around... Zoroastrianism also left its mark on Jewish ritual."
 * "...All our three Semitic religions owe this moral principle to the neighboring Aryan religion of Iran, Zoroastrianism, also a monotheistic faith."
 * "Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith with elements of radical dualism, but Gherardo Gnoli argues that this is not necessarily a conflict."
 * A firm monotheist... Zarathustra taught his converts to worship only Ahura Mazda. He is served by six Amesha Spentas... These messengers bridge the gap between the holiness of God and human beings.  ... R.C. Zaehner refers to them as "aspects of God, but aspects in which man too can share.""
 * "Zoroastrianism teaches a mixture of monotheism and dualism." Not ditheism, but dualism (the idea that good and evil are distinct forces) as opposed to monism (the idea that evil is an absence of good rather than something that exists on its own).
 * ZOROASTRIANISM (ZOROASTER) An ancient religion founded in pre-Islamic Persia (now Iran) in the early part of the first millennium B.C.E. ... Founded by Zarathustra (or Zoroaster), the faith's primary innovation was monotheism, combined with a radical dualism of good and evil.  The Judeo-Christian idea of the Devil was borrowed from Zoroastrianism at the time of the Babylonian exile."
 * Simply put, what you are pushing is outdated Sunday school sectarianism, not modern scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What I am pushing is not "Sunday school sectarianism", but clearly you seem to be pushing anti-Abrahamic viewpoints, largely because you have a personal hostility towards Abrahamic faiths. Most sources do claim the modern form of Zoroastrianism is either monotheistic or dualistic, or both, but it is not strictly monotheistic as in the Abrahamic sense. Most sources also do not shy away from the fact that the Zoroastrian scriptures have significant polytheistic and animistic elements (see the extensive list of Yashts) which simply are not found in any of the Abrahamic faiths. Intercession of saints is only held in Catholicism, but is not polytheism. Saints were actual human beings, not deities or semi-divinities. They are commemorated, but are not supposed to be worshipped, and no authority is prayed to in either mainline Christianity, Judaism or Islam other than God. Mainline, traditional Judaism and Islam (the vast majority in each faith) especially do not have worship of anything but God, and not have idols or icons of any sort whatsoever. Angels are briefly mentioned in the Bible but are not prayed to or worshipped like the Yashts (animistic deities) of Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster himself prayed to several deities, like Anahita. Additionally, during the Achaemenid period, the many rulers of the empire adopted the polytheistic elements of the religions they came in contact with in their newly conquered territories of Babylon, Egypt, Anatolia, etc.

All you are presenting is the one-sided view of an argument held by a minority of fringe scholars. Your sources are based on minority opinions, not fact and not even a widely-held consensus among scholars. They are not any more relevant than any other sources, such as those I or Paul Barlow have included above. The earliest Zoroastrian texts of any sort date to the 3rd century AD, and those texts do not include many of the later additions which it has in common with Christianity. The earliest compilation of Jewish texts, the Dead Sea scrolls, by contrast date to the 5th - 4th century BC at the earliest. As for your views on the extent of monotheism in pre-exilic Judaism, it is currently an ongoing debate in the academic community, but most recognize that monolatry does not exclude the fact that a segment of the population were strictly monotheistic and solely believed in YHWH (Smith, 2003). The Hebrew Bible itself describes this and mentions that there were populations, including non-Israelites (Edomites, Ammonites, etc.), under the control of the wider Kingdom of Israel and Judah who still worshipped other deities, while others were monotheistic and only worshipped YHWH such as Josiah. In any case, historical records of Judaism, the Kingdom of Israel (see Merneptah Stele) and the ancient Israelites all pre-date the first historical record of Zoroastrianism by several centuries. The main body of scripture for Zoroastrianism, on a level similar to those earliest texts of Judaism and Christianity, was also not written until around the 9th century AD. There is zero evidence whatsoever for the Avesta originating in the 2nd millennium BC. The few claims of the earlier dates are nothing more than speculation, based solely on the structure of the language. Such an argument is considered irrelevant to most scholars given that many liturgical languages used to write texts maintain ancient linguistic forms not largely used by the contemporary population which is writing those texts and using that language for religious purposes. The ancient form is seen as "pure" or sacred, which is why it is maintained. Clear examples are Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic, Coptic or Old Church Slavonic used to compile many ancient respective Jewish, Islamic and Orthodox Christian manuscripts, even though those languages themselves were extinct as a common vernacular when texts were written in such languages. Furthermore, both the Avesta and Zoroaster himself are thought to have originated in what is now northeastern Iran and northwestern Afghanistan, where the Iranian languages (including Avestan) of the time were in very close proximity to the closely related Indo-Aryan languages of the Indus Valley civilization, including Vedic Sanskrit to which Avestan is very closely related. Avestan was still spoken in this area of the eastern Iranian plateau during the Achaemenid period (6th - 3rd centuries BC), when Old Persian was also still spoken in southwestern regions. Most scholars, as is mentioned in several sources listed in this discussion, as well as in this article, support the view that Zoroastrianism only emerged as a religious community around the 6th to 5th centuries BC. The religion itself is not mentioned anywhere in any historical context until the 6th century BC at the earliest, and even at that point it was not a widespread religion of the newly formed Achaemenid empire (the empire included several provinces of many different nations and religions). Epf (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Even Boyce (1982; 2007), who is part of the fringe group who claims Zoroastrianism had a notable influence on Judaism, acknowledges that Zoroastrianism inherited ideas from other belief systems, including Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism. Historical records of both Hinduism and Judaism both pre-date those of Zoroastrianism by several centuries.
 * Boyce, Mary (1982), The History of Zoroastrianism 2, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 90-04-06506-7, (repr. 1997)
 * Boyce, Mary (2007), Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-23903-5*Boyce, Mary (1983), "Ahura Mazdā", Encyclopaedia Iranica 1, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul pages 684–687

Also see:
 * Smith, Mark S (2003). The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia does not use original research, which is what most of your claims are. Why would I be pushing an anti-Abrahamic POV when I'm Baptist?  How would I be citing works from Fortress Press (an imprint of the Lutheran publishers Augsburg Fortress), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, and a work that cites a Catholic scholar?  The difference is that I'm sticking to academic sources (either from historically reliable religious scholarship companies as mentioned before, and secular companies such as John Wiley & Sons, Brill Publishers, Greenwood Publishing Group, and Rowman & Littlefield) and only what they say -- not misrepresenting selections from certain academic works while ignoring the rest.  While Boyce acknowledges a common ancestor with the Vedic religion (which is only "Hinduism" in a very broad sense), the sources you cited only mentioned much later influence by Christianity, and not Judaism -- To keep citing Boyce on that claim when that has been pointed out to you is either dishonest or incompetent.  One of the many citations I provided above was Smith, who does not assert that Zoroastrianism picked up monotheism from Judaism at all -- either Persian influence or parallel development, but not Israelite influence on Zoroastrianism.  The very title of the Smith book you cite clearly indicates that Smith believes that the Israelite religion developed out of Canaanite polytheism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To suppose that Mary Boyce is "fringe", as someone above did, is pretty much the silliest thing I have ever heard in relation to Zoroastrianism. Her writing is sometimes overzealous (tendentious even), but she is definitely not "fringe" when she just summarizes what someone else had previously written on the subject. Tens of thousands of pages have been written on inter-cultural borrowing between Judaism and Zoroastrianism (e.g. Irano-Judaica, now at volume 7, edited by none other than Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer).
 * Specious arguments like "given the older age of Judaism," are just as silly. Judaism and Zoroastrianism both hark back to pre-history. Ethnic religions are not "older" or "younger" than any other.
 * Pretty much everyone recognizes that Zoroastrianism and Judaism borrowed from each other. This is not news unless one happens to live in the 18th or 19th century and/or one is gullible enough to believe that every text in which Zoroaster appears to have a "conversation" with Mazda was written by Zoroaster himself.
 * And the notion that "monotheism" has anything to do with such borrowing is childish and naive. No serious scholar of religion of our time would suggest that Judaism borrows the concept of "monotheism" from Zoroastrianism for the simple reason that the two systems have fundamentally different ideas of what a "God"/"god" is (the -theis- in "monotheism"). With fundamental differences between the two systems for the word "god", the "-theisms" cannot be applied with the same meaning to both.
 * In Judaism, Christianity and Islam "monotheism" implies monist, in Zoroastrianism it does not, unless one means Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, in which case Zoroastrianism is monist but not monotheistic. Gee whiz, confused already? Cut the labels, people. You are not sufficiently informed to be throwing them around. -- 77.183.191.30 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015
This is not an Indo-Iranian religion. This is a Persian religion and it should be staying that way. This religion does not have anything to do with Indo. Iranian are Persian, however Zoroastrianism started from Persian time and it should stay in the name of Persia for future generation.

Thank you.

75.94.105.36 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015
In this article, there is a false sentence, its a lie which follows like this:  "....have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. " No its has not!

176.111.204.250 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ that statement is clearly referenced to a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to remove Judaism from the list of later religions again
The original material is sourced to a mainstream academic source, the Penguin Dictionary of Religion. The new paragraph cited Wikipedia (which fails WP:RS).

To deny the possibility of Zoroastrian influence because Abraham may have predated Zoroaster requires claiming that modern Judaism is completely identical to the religion Abraham practiced in every single particular. That would require extraordinarily good sources not only for that, but miraculously good sources to prove that Judaism has not evolved over the centuries, to explain away the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism in Second Temple Judaism (with Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity, which both evolved from Second Temple Judaism, defining themselves in relation to each other), and then explain away the origins of Second Temple Judaism in the Israelite religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM...I think it says at the top...
Interestingly, just today I noticed THAT very phrase at the tope of this talk page. I suppose it's on EVERY article's talk page. But it's a good reminder. Stop the forum! (Would you all?) Nonetheless, I suggest it is disingenuous to assume that one religion influenced the three major religions. In any case, it would be wiser to edit it to say that there "are," "seem to be," or "it has been noticed that there are" "SHARED TRAITS" between this and the three major religions of the world. All the forum discussions don't seem to help much. A lot of bickering between what one source or other mentions, and what is interpreted to mean by each source, etc. Again: The shorter and best way to solve this would be to mention that there are or seem to be common or shared traits between the religions. That seems to be indisputable (as opposed to the other options). -Capikiw (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No idea what the "fin" in the tag section was about. But:  Wouldn't it be more neutral to leave the article as I proposed (and changed)?
 * This certainly has to be some sort of "forum" if attempts at neutrality are reverted without discussion :P :(
 * -Capikiw (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by "disingenuous". It's just standard scholarship, an argument dating back beyond Nietzsche. As for 'shared traits', that's simply not what scholarship says. Judaism evolved over time, and of course the other two faith clearly follow from that evolution. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to become semi protected
No discussion of Zoroastrianism's influence on Exilic and post Exilic Judaism? That is absolutely unacceptable, especially when couched with diplomatic language like "most scholars agree that ... while a very small minority of scholars, often affiliated with rival religions, dispute this..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1800:6D:E175:9D4C:4363:D2D2 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing article
A shame that this article is almost entirely about metaphysics and history. There needs to be much more about practice (tell us about how Z's worship, what moral rules they follow, how the faith is passed on, what different schools there are, practice in the disposal of the dead, how many accept the possibility of conversion). And the numbers look dodgy: can we have some sources for these? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015
"... were threatened by Zoroasters teaching against over-ritualising religious ceremonies." should be "... were threatened by Zoroaster's teaching against over-ritualising religious ceremonies."

96.237.75.190 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for pointing that out. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewrote Introductory Paragraphs
I rewrote the introductory paragraphs to make them more readable and to cite sources -- as well as including the Medes as original adherents, along with the early Iranians. Please let me know if you don't like the changes before you convert back. I believe the entire article could use work, but wanted to make the introduction intelligible at least, which it wasn't before, and to correctly reference it. Oakbranch (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote your rewrite. Let me know what you think. I moved your ecology paragraph to "theology". I don't think going into detail on the dating of the religion belongs in the introduction.FourLights (talk)`

All wrong
This article is full of lies.

For example, this article states that Zoroastrianism has its origins in the Persian empire. That is complete and utter bullshit.

Look at the enclosed image. You see the symbol engraved on that wall? That's Faravahar, the best known symbol of Zoroastranism.

Guess where this symbol is placed? On the TOMB OF CYAXARES THE GREAT IN KURDISTAN, THE MEDIAN KING.

Guess what? The Median Empire is aprox. 200 years older than the Persian Empire, which means that Zoroastranism was established HUNDREDS OF YEARS before there was even a Persian Empire. The Achaemenid Empire was not even Persian by the way, it was Medo-Persian, Cyrus' mother was a Mede, his grandfather was the Emperor of the Median Empire, and he came to power via a Median general, Hapargus. Herodotus & old documents confirm that the Achamenid Empire was more Median, than it was Persian. This Persian crap is something that started the last 2 centuries via Persian nationalism, it's incorrect historically.

So please change it to origins in Median Empire. You can not possibly deny this, it was used by Median Kings, in Media. The guts some people have...

Link: Faravahar on Cyaxares the Great's tomb. Cyaxares the Great was the third & most competent king of the Median Empire. His tomb is located in Slemani, Kurdistan.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/26/2b/ca/262bca52bc0add3d492f3ef014dc66d2.jpg

I've subsequently edited the introduction, but the history of Media isn't central to the introduction.FourLights (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * New sections go at the bottom. We do not use original research.  Please cite non-primary mainstream academic sources for your changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added some sources. Discuss objections with me. There's very limited material for Zoroastrianism online but I think iranicaonline has excellent sources.FourLights (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of sources you cited fail our reliable sourcing guidelines:
 * Heritage institute is a business site that includes some layman material -- not an academic site.
 * John A. Hardon's Religions of the World may be a reliable source, but Therealpresence.org would be better for defining Catholic perspectives on subjects.
 * New World Encyclopedia is just a rip-off of Wikipedia sponsored by the Unification Church. Wikipedia does not meet its own reliable sourcing guidelines, and so a rip-off that is intentionally and openly religiously biased fails it as well.
 * Avesta.org is a good website for personal study, but Joseph Peterson is not an accredited or noted authority on Zoroastrianism. The reliable sources on the site would include Dhalla's History of Zoroastrianism, Drower's Peacock Angel, and maybe Taqizadeh's Old Iranian Calendars.  The rest of the materials on that site are either primary sources, or personal research by individuals who are not accredited, peer-reviewed, or noted academic authorities on Zoroastrianism.
 * Lack of reliable sourcing is an adequate enough objection to revert edits on this site. Google books is a better place to search for information than a general web search -- just be sure to avoid self-published or pay-to-print publishers like lulu.com.  Encyclopedia Iranica is generally a good source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll make a partial edit and go over Dhalla in my spare time.FourLights (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Dhalla is already cited in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I believe the iranicaonline by itself supports the minor changes I made to the introduction. Agreed?FourLights (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hows this as a source http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/secrets_of_zoroastrianism.php

it has origins in Vedic religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is standard English, which anyone able to read the page can come up with on their own, as opposed to truly bizarre pronunciations like Chalcis's which are properly included. Note also that the previous pronunciation was only for American English. (Brits pronounce their long Os slightly differently. Yes, it's silly to bother including that but, then, it was silly to have had IPA in the first place.) Removed to the word's Wiktionary entry, per. — Llywelyn II   22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "Cock"
Please change the 'but held the rooster as a "symbol of light"[68] and associated the cock with "good against evil"' to "but held the rooster as a "symbol of light"[68] and associated it with "good against evil"'

The word "cock" should not be used when referring to the Zoroastrian symbolism involving Roosters. I don't know if that word was used with malicious intent, but it certainly provides no additional explanatory value (as opposed to the pronoun "it"), and detracts from the article.

50.196.178.177 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done At least nothing is lost by using the pronoun. Thanks for you suggestion. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA
This will surely come up again on a page like this, so just a reminder that the page started as and that style should be maintained pending a new consensus to the contrary. A tally of the current argument is
 * Jfruh, Geni, Uncle Ed, Haseler, GaryColemanFan, Huey45, CreativeSoul7981
 * Slrubenstein, SouthernComfort, Paul B, violet/riga, Spudtater, Wetman, Paul August, Ian.thompson, Stephan Schulz

and about an equal number of editors who just say shaddup, shaddup, shaddup. ; ) If it does come back up for discussion, I'm in the camp as more straightforward, terser, and clearer. It's also less offensive: The only actual Zoroastrians in the discussion have both spoken in favor of ; the guys offended on their behalf are simply oikophobes anxious to avoid being part of their own culture. —  Llywelyn II   00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth pointing out that Huey45 was eventually blocked for all disruptive behavior on this page that demonstrated that he did not belong on the site.


 * Could you please link to the conversations that provide good faith evidence that the BCE/CE supporters are "oikophobes anxious to avoid being part of their own culture" and not only "offended," but on behalf of only the Zoroastrians in particular? Because what I've seen are more objections to going against WP:ERA and using Christian terminology outside of Christianity.


 * And could you please list which users in support of BC/AD are Zoroastrian? I didn't immediately find that information on the userpages of the individuals you listed.  Not that that's how we'd decide things (otherwise, as I Christian, I object to Christian terminology being used outside of Christianity).  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing at all worthwhile in pointing that out. Is there a people-I-like caveat on whom we count when discussing consensus? Your own bad history with him and his inability to follow procedure has no bearing on his preference in the matter. As you attest, it was for to the point of putting off other editors.


 * Reread the statement. I didn't say you all are. violet/riga even argued in favor of in her discussion: I included her among the  votes because her rationale was stability and maintaining the original usage of the page. It's now fairly stable at  and she simply didn't realize that  was the original formatting. A perfectly valid rationale.


 * As for the Zoroastrians, you can read through the archives like I did. There were two of them and, as mentioned, they were the only self-announced Zoroastrians in the discussion. Quite right that it's a side point as far as changing any consensus, but it certainly blunts the arguments—such as the one you just half-made—that is "religious terminology" any more than Thursday is.


 * In any case, your opposition to such a change is already noted (above and in the archive) and at the moment it's not a likely change anyway, so there's not much call for you to hold forth further on the point. If you just had inquiries for me, there's always my talk page. — Llywelyn II   12:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I: with relations to Aryan Vedism...
An editor restored the phrase
 * with relations to Aryan Vedism,

to the lead. I really have no idea why. I don't say that as a negative thing: it really might somehow be helpful information in some way but it doesn't make any sense currently and needs to be rephrased and linked for clarity.

First, leaving aside the Nazi commotations, Aryan isn't a helpful term and needs to be disambiguated. Second, on its face, Vedism—the precursor to Hinduism—has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Now, I get that the two religions shared a common origin among the Indo-Europeans (we think), but that's (a) conjectural and (b) nothing near strong enough to put into the first sentence of the article (c) without sourcing and (d) without clarifying what the link supposedly is. If the only connection is that they're somewhat related, that belongs lower down in the lead; in the history section; or in the see also section. — Llywelyn II   12:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I put it in because I've read about it and it gives some description to the religion for anyone familiar with the term. And uh.... they are Aryan. The source is Aryan. Mmmm...  I think relations with vedism are more clear cut than you seem to think, as in, one precedes theother, but it's not important enough for me personally to do anything about it. 1


 * I think your reverting the page is unnecessary. Specific editing, and not reverts, is called for. Your version of the introductory paragraph is too long. I appreciate grammary input, though I do consider your version of the sentence mentioned... unusually structured.


 * And please, don't call me "an editor" like there is someone else here. The only other person here is if we call someone in. If someone else wants to prove me wrong, please contribute.FourLights (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for giving offense but I wasn't being rude. There was another editor and it might've been something he did instead.


 * With respect, you need to read Aryan and Aryan (disambiguation) if you really think the term is helpful. If you mean Indo-Iranians, at bare minimum, you need to link to their page (not the word "Aryan" page), so people know that you mean something respectable and not something cut-and-pasted from Stormfront. (I'm not saying that you are like that: I'm saying that the name you're using keeps bad company and you need to use it carefully.)


 * Finally, as stated, "relations" is too to go into a . It's fine to include the general idea further down the page, though you still need to clarify. The actual page Vedism does not mention connections to Zoroastrianism. Instead, it says both derive from the proposed still-earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. (Any statements probably need caveating, too. There's no historical record of any connection: our ideas that an Proto-Indo-Iranian religion even existed is just based on linguistic analysis and scholarship.) —  Llywelyn II   13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

II: Fullstop
I know it's from 2006, but it's worth pulling some of Fullstop's discussion of the lead sentence back out of the memory hole (Archive 4):


 * Would people please refrain from fiddling with the lede (lead) sentence? Much thought has gone into the "Zoroastrianism is the name of the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra, Zartosht). Mazdaism is the name of the religion that acknowledges the supremecy of Ahura Mazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God)." In this form, the lede is both historically and doctrinally correct and will not offend any sensibilities. It is not as precise as it could be, but it fulfills its purpose without stepping on any toes. The reason Mazdaism occurs in the lede is because Mazdaism is a redirect to Zoroastrianism, which is ok for now since in the context of (at least) modern Zoroastrianism, the two are synonymous.


 * The typical (repeatedly inserted) additions listed below (usually by anon editors) are either downright wrong, specious, or misleading:
 * "Zoroastrianism is monotheistic"
 * Zoroastrianism was not always monotheistic. If an established scholar of Zoroastrian history has determined otherwise, then a citation would be in order, and should include a definition of monotheism that does not conflict with other WP articles...




 * "Most powerful religions" is inappropriate, but the sentiment is right, so I changed it to "Important faith traditions"


 * "Zoroastrianism  Mazdaism"
 * When stating this, take into consideration that 1) Zoroastrianism is synonymous with Mazdaism ONLY in the present-day form of the religion. 2) A belief in Ahura Mazda predates Zoroastrianism by at least several centuries. 3) Mazdaism continued to be practiced independantly of Zoroastrianism until at least the 3rd c. BCE. 4) Mazdaism was definitely not synonymous with Sassanid-era Zoroastrianism.


 * Dates for Zoroaster.
 * This article is on Zoroastrianism, not on Zoroaster, where the issue is explained at length, and can in no way can be adequately parenthesized, eg. "(12th, else 18th, else 6th century BCE)"...


 * Besides, a lede sentence should be *short* and to the point. Nothing but the simplest terms (that need no further explanation) should be in the lede.

I like the current phrasing "...one of the oldest..." and I don't like splitting the two names across two sentences, but I do think we should aim for terseness (see above about random mentions of "Aryan" Vedism) but mention and link Zoroaster in the first sentence. — Llywelyn II   13:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

III: Alt names
Also note that Magianism and Zarathustraism are such uncommon terms that placing them beside the other two gives them weight. I don't want to remove them from the article. I put them in a note; if you guys don't like that, another good option would be moving it down to the #Terminology section. — Llywelyn II   13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It might have been more contributive to add them to the Terminology section, if you were up for it.FourLights (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I listed that as a perfectly valid option. — Llywelyn II   03:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IV: Zoroaster or Zarathustra, not both
Similarly, we should mention Zoroaster's other names (in the #Terminology section) but we should choose Zoroaster or Zarathustra and use it consistently in the running text of the article.

Fwiw, Zarathustra's actually more common these days (probably thanks to Nietzsche), in addition to not being Greek. — Llywelyn II   13:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have just left it as Zoroaster on account of it being the commonly known name of the religion, but you can change it if you feel it contributes to accuracy or somesuch.FourLights (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

V: Number of adherents
Finally, it also seems to be an (or even ) issue if we're quoting one source—a non- website run anonymously off of Go Daddy (?!)—to justify saying that there are 2.6 million Zoroastrians when all of the sources in the page's #Demographic section provide numbers in the tens of thousands, when List of countries by Zoroastrian population backs those numbers up, Zoroastrians' own studies back those numbers up as of 2013, and those numbers are completely consistent with previous studies. I get that we have a footnote caveat... but it just says "trust this website... stuff changed" without any actual justification for saying so. — Llywelyn II   13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would direct users to this paragraph. A user recently tried to revert the introduction into a discussion of demographics.FourLights (talk)

"Monotheism"
Removed, pending. Numerous editors have complained in the archives about this and been shut down by a local but, no, this article cannot baldly state that such an obviously dualistic religion is monotheistic without sourcing. Actual source included, along with its interpretation of the question. There may be other ideas, but they need to be cited and have at least as much scholarly weight. — Llywelyn II   22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

See also this extensive list of sources treating Zoroastrianism as dualist if not ditheistic. Not worshipping the evil deity doesn't make him any less of a deity; the term for worshipping one god while believing in others is "henotheism", not "monotheism". I found a source for treating Zoroastrianism as quasi-monotheistic, but anything stronger than that probably needs caveats like "is sometimes understood as" or some footnotes explaining how the other god isn't really a god-god. — Llywelyn II   01:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though the term henotheist is dubious. The Zorostrians do regard the seven powers as "worthy of worship"... but I don't have anything to suggest that they regard them as gods, which I believe is what the term honotheism refers to. The term Angel is more common.


 * I would regard your current quotation in the lead paragraph as accurate, albeit likely a little complex for the people reading wikipedia.FourLights (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Henotheist is dubious if they consider them angels. The fact there's an equally powerful entity fighting the worshipped god is what makes it henotheistic, along with all of the historic gods, if we're talking about the religion as a whole. — Llywelyn II   03:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you'll read my overview section, it might be more accurate to regard Angra Mainyu as a reflection of the Spenta Mainyu. (perhaps like a reflection in water, a common enough metaphor in related religion like Manichism and Gnosticism).FourLights (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I now have the paragraph I wrote concerning these questions moved to the second paragraph.FourLights (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Zoroastrianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927204603/http://www.amordad6485.blogfa.com/post-7098.aspx to http://www.amordad6485.blogfa.com/post-7098.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the word "once" should be "one" instead.
Howdy,

In the sentence below, shouldn’t the word once be one instead?

“Others have responded that, since the scripture calls for the protection of water, earth, fire, air, as once of its strongest precepts, it is, in effect, an ecological religion: "It is not surprising that Mazdaism (another term for Zoroastrianism) is called the ﬁrst ecological religion.”

No sources.

2601:281:C200:D1B2:0:0:0:8864 (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)SP 3/03/2016

I think this article has been written by a hindu, a disgrace to human intellact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.249.85 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

order
I could move theological discussion to the top of the article, putting history second. It's been suggested before, that the article is too history focused.FourLights (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

-Theology gripe- "Leading characteristics, such as messianism, heaven and hell, and free will influenced other religious systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Islam" Strictly speaking, Zoroastrianism did not necessarily influence these religions, but does share similarities. Furthermore, "second temple" Judaism should be called simply Judaism for simplicity's sake, as well as the fact that this period would theologically be classified as a revival to orthodoxy in ancient judaism, not a new religion; this is at least the theological stance of modern judaism. This should perhaps be changed to the following: "Leading characteristics, such as messianism, heaven and hell, and free will has commonality with other religious systems, including Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Gnosticism.

This would take the theologically offensive stank off things, but still convey that this religion is similar, and as one reads further, possibly influential. Thus, this would be less contentious, and more theologically open rather than historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.141.147 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Grab a reference instead of blathering.FourLights (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and the Kurds
I'm not an expert on Zoroastrianism, so I thought I'd start on the talk page with this question: ought Zoroastrianism among the Kurds get mentioned in this article? There's this article and this one, as well as the relationship of the Yazidi religion to Zoroastrianism. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of Yazdanism. I'll add a mention in the introduction. I think it's fitting to add comparative section, but I don't know at the moment where it ought to go. If someone starts a section I'll try and help edit it.FourLights (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There have since been further inclusion of related faiths.FourLights (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mithraic/Kurdish sentence (introduction)
This is sentence that I wrote. It is below. It was removed recently from the introduction by a pseudo-anonymous user. If you don't think it should be here, say so and I'll leave it out of the introduction. It could also be put elsewhere, if thought more better or more approriate. The inclusion of related Kurdish faith in the article has been discussed in the past. I consider it's inclusion informative.

The statement reads "Besides the Zoroastrian diaspora, older Mithraic faith like Yazdanism is still practised amongst the Kurds." It's note reads: "As a kind of proto-Zoroastrianism, both worship "Seven Angels" alongside the primary deity and have a high regard for the concept of truth."

On the other hand, I do not believe that precise discussion of demographics like "The change over the last decade is attributed to a greater level of reporting and open self-identification more so than to an actual increase in population" is relevant or appropriate for the introduction, which is why it is now a note. An introduction is a universalistic overview, not a discussion of demographics, for which there is a demographics section. This is discussed in section V: Number of adherents.FourLights (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

vedic religion - blended in local culture
zoroastranism is Vedic religion absorbed by the iranians evident in similarities of deities, customs etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Get a source and try and write something about it. I can help, but there isn't a team here to up and respond to your every suggestion, and I already have a page that I write. Help a guy out.FourLights (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016
"In the Cappadocian kingdom, who's territory was formerly an Achaemenid possession" "who's" should be "whose"

Fliingdutchmn (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)