Talk:Zoroastrianism

GA Reassessment

Zoroastrianism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted, 24 citation needed tags (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The prose for this article is not always clear and concise, and large chunks of this article are left uncited. Therefore, I believe delisting this article should be considered. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 03:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mary Boyce says Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam

According to Mary Boyce, one of the people on Reasearcher1988's list of sources, the Islamic Califate is the reason that the Yazad are sometimes called "angels". She has an entire chapter on this in one of her books. However, the specific page is 157. Wherein she says that: "Thus the religious vocabulary of both shows an admixture of Arabic words, witness to the pervasive influence of Arabic on spoken Persian after two and a half centuries of domination. In both communities, the word 'fereshte' or 'angel' is commonly substituted for 'yazad', the result no doubt of trying to counter Muslim accusations of polytheism." I think this makes it very clear that either 1) this author must be stricken from the page, or 2) we must add this information. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

this means not that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam at all. Mary Boyce believes that Yazatas should be left untranslated and just be called Yazatas (Not angels, or gods).

and I have no problem with adding Mary Boyce to the article. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Do you have an issue with me adding sections involving the quote I have put in bold above? Incidentally, one of your sources for the Zoroastrians influencing Christianity only talks about the art. It doesn't mention angels, heaven, hell, free will, judgement, or most of the others - bar demons. It's written by an artist and Islamic Theologian - not an expert on Zoroastrianism. Never mind a famous one. The other source here is an economics journal. I feel both should be stricken out. Though I am quite interested to see that the first source calls the Zoroastrian Mithras a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

the text in bold is already present in theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sara kuehn is a researcher and expert on religious and cultural studies:

"www.sarakuehn.com I am a researcher, writer, and lecturer, presently teaching at the Department of Islamic Theology, University of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of (art) history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Yes. Art history. Theology. Cultural studies. Doesn't that fall rather short of your strict demands for specific experts in Zoroastrianism that you say preclude me from including a linguist who is an expert in the local languages? And, again, the other is an economist who we have not seen to have specific expertise here? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

no Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

FunFact, some researchers believe that the Zorastrian religion is alrgely lost, since Persians only started to be interested in their religion again, after the embraced Islam and then, most of their ancient language was lost. Works such as the Shanameh, often celebrated as resistance against Islamization, are actually relying heavenly on Islam. Can't give a source, since it was in a discussion with an expert on research of Persian history who introduced me to the Middle Persian language. (but since this turned into kindof an exchange and this talkpage is a mess anyways, maybe this is an interesting note) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle If you could track something down about that, it would be very illuminating. I believe the Islamic period is critical to understanding the claims of monotheism.

@Researcher1988 A one word answer implies you cannot actually oppose what I said. If you cannot, then I will be adding the word 'art' to that section or removing the source. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

She is a highly trusted academic.

"Dr. Sara Kuehn is a researcher writer and lecturer, presently teaching at department of Islamic theology, university of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of art history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If I meet something along the line, I will surely add this. I did not finish my seminar due to the whole situation around COVID a few years ago, and have no contact to the teacher anymore. If I stumble upon something along the line, I surely want to add this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Funfact: Zoroastrianism is one of the world oldest continuing practiced religions. nobody believes that nonsense.

Iranisns were forced to accept Islam. they didn't embraced Islam. you need to read more about subjects you don't know anything about. you don't know anything about Zoroastrianism. your personal opinions are irrelevant.

Michael Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism

This is pure hatred against Zoroastrians. you should be reported for your racism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Strike this entire reply, it's nothing but tendentious bile. You've very quickly shed any appearance of editing in good faith in your last few days of remarks. Remsense诉 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why you think like this? these users hate Zoroastrianism, they are attacking the Religion and me who want to defend it. you know this very well. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an impudence this user is still allowed to reply. It is a gree-card for the most obnoxious behavior. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As said, I am gonna ignore you until you apologize for your misconduct. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 So you are admitting that your concern is in protecting an ideological position, rather than about factuality or following Wikipedia's guidelines? And you do so by pushing for a section that you cannot source which Muslims, Jews, and so on would be upset by? Do you think that Muslims or Jews might find that racist at all? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Researcher1988 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)

Plan to Remove Unsupported Section Making Fringe Claims

As far as I've been able to determine, there is no evidence (or academic consensus) for the idea that Zoroastrianism's ideas resulted in the creation of other religions (such as Islam, etc). The idea seems to be very WP:FRINGE, and most sources I come across say nothing about it. It is also massively controversial, and will be deeply offensive to members of said religions. Especially in light of evidence that those religions likely had a huge influence on Zoroastrianism during the Islamic conquest period (See: Jenny's work), and in the missionary period of the 19th century. I'm not really sure why would we assume the direction of influence based merely on common features, to be honest. Especially since (at the moment) the only two citations supporting it are from 1) an economist with no background I can see in Zoroastrianism, and 2) an Islamic theologian writing about art - who similarly has no background. In the latter case, the essay doesn't even mention most of the beings that the section claims it does. And I couldn't find anything discussing the claims made based on it. It also seems very gratuitous that such a controversial and unsupported section would be in the lead. When I arrived here, this section wasn't even cited - which doesn't bode well for it being a real theory. So I feel I have strong grounds to treat it as dubious. Especially in light of how it will be read. So I think my proposal will be to remove such sections, until it can be shown there is academic consensus for them - or, failing that, some kind of reliable evidence. If evidence can be provided, I suggest they be moved to a special 'controvercy' section with other such claims. Otherwise the claims should be weighed against conflicting information for neutrality. Either way, I don't think such an unverified claim it should be a core statement in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the section down to its own area, for now- until we decide what to do with it- and added some clarifiers. 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add that section again with reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if you can find better sourcing than an art historian, I severely doubt any existing body of reliable sources for this claim will amount to WP:DUEWEIGHT to appear in the lead as such. Remsense诉 09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mary Boyce:

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general last judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowing by Judaism Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence. Since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense why?

this part was in the lead for a long time and is supported by reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

this part was in the lead for a long time

Wholly irrelevant.

supported by reliable sources.

The article has to proportionately represent its subject, we don't get to put claims we like at the top if their emphasis is not reflective of the whole body of sources on the subject. These claims belong in the body of the article, weighted appropriately in context. Just because claims are verifiable doesn't make them WP:DUE. You know this. Remsense诉 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

there is general agreement among Scholars for that claim.

Dr Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 As near as I can tell; that section is somewhat WP:FRINGE, and was originally placed there with no sources. Meaning it was likely a WP:POV edit to begin with. Much later on (when it was challenged by me) you added two citations that don't really support it. While you have now come up with some different sources, the idea still seems WP:FRINGE and controversial. I don't think we have much of a solid WP:CONSENSUS or evidence to back it up. And I think it's too spicy/off-topic for the lead in any case. I think Wikipedia should be totally neutral on such controversial claims, and keep them in their own 'theoretical' section. Especially when the given citations seem weak, and clash with stronger evidence. For example; that Zoroastrianism went through a period where they were suppressed by Islamic Caliphate, and adopted Islamic ideas to survive. Later adopting more from Missionaries. And then, again, being interpreted and translated through a Western lens by Academics. Which is something of a known problem. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible I'd suggest opening a discussion at WP:FRINGEN, as this falls into the pseudohistory category and could use more eyes. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise That sounds like a good plan if this can't be resolved through conversation. I'm thinking that it's possible we should wait to see how the Admin thread resolves first, however, as I feel there may be rules about spamming those kinds of message boards. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I'll do it then. I have no confidence in anything being done on the admin thread, and content issues are distinct from behavior issues. Each in their place is fine. Skyerise (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

a note: I found about the edit conflict on this page due to WP:RS/N and also watch WP:FRINGEN. There is currently a debate there about how that noticeboard should engage with religion articles. So it may either get no attention or a whole lot of attention. LOL. Suggest establishing the sources are unambiguously fringe and not just misrepresented first. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I menan from the Kuehn source's abstract: Conclusive evidence points to the fact that the iconographic semantics of the medieval Western Asian equestrian dragon-fighter in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions.

The Kuehn piece speculates on the influence of Zoroastrianism but finds evidence of syncretism between various Near Eastern religions. This isn't a fringe position - it's simply WP:CHERRYPICKING from a source that misinterprets its main thrust. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another quote from the Kuehn piece: Yet there is no evidence that would establish a direct connection, 7 since in none of the cases does the serpent seem to be a noxious beast nor does the rider seem to battle with the serpent. 8 On the contrary, in Mithraism, which became a widespread religion in the Mediterranean basin, Europe and the Near East, the serpent appears to have been “a symbol of beneficial, life-giving force.” - so, yeah, we have an issue here with selective quotation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement may in large part be due to the influence of Zoroastrian and Iranian dualistic conceptions in which the final triumph of good is implicit on the religions of the Near East from the Achaemenid period to the early centuries of the present era. is cited to Boyce and Grenet, 1991, pp. 361–490; Gnoli, “Dualism,” EIr; Hintze, 1999, pp. 72–9, esp. pp. 75–6. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

But note the double-qualifier "may in large part be due". Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another key source for Kuehn is Saul Shaked here Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the actual conclusion The iconographic semantics of the equestrian dragon-fighter – from the greater KhurƗsƗn region to Asia Minor – in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation, thus owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions. These were probably inspired to a large extent by ancient Iranian dualist notions, and specifically eschatological thought systems, which resulted in close parallels between Iranian and Jewish concepts, inherited, in turn, by Christianity and then Islam.

This is a far weaker claim than it was being used to support. However the essay does not appear to be fringe - it's just being used incorrectly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The other source is literally just a bibliography. Here's nearly half of its non-bibliographical copy: Because of the introductory nature of this bibliography, one goal has been to be as broad as possible in scope. Because similar ideas can arise independently, some of the parallels between ancient Zoroastrianism and Jewish beliefs and practices are surely accidental. However, it is not the intent of this bibliography to provide original research or to identify which similarities are true instances of Persian influence on Jewish practices and doctrines and which are merely instances of two peoples who shared some cultural and religious traits developing in parallel. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

From WP:RSPRIMARY Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. so there's nothing wrong with using a tertiary source like a bibliography, and it doesn't look fringe at all, but it also fails verification for supporting the claim it was cited for. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well that the sources from Reasercher1988 always turn out to dismantle their case once you read more deeply into them. 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All this is to say that the removal of the claim from the lede was righteous but it wasn't because the sources were fringe. It's because the sources fail verification of the claim. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Thank you. My removal of the art historian source was in large part due to similar reasoning, though I do also think there are many other reasons not to place it in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 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 Researcher1988 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:

• 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.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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?

• 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.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

VenusFeuerFalle 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)