J
jas84173
Guest
Zoroastrianism, known to its followers as the Zarathushti din (Zoroastrian religion), developed from the words, ideas, beliefs, and rituals attributed to a devotional poet named Zarathushtra (later Middle Persian or Pahlavi: Zardukhsht, Zardusht; New Persian or Farsi: Zardosht). Zarathushtra eventually came to be regarded as the founder and prophet of the devotionally monotheistic, doctrinally dualistic faith named after him. So, followers of the religion are termed Zoroastrians (New Persian: Zartoshtis, Zardoshtis; Gujarati: Jarthushtis). Zoroastrians also traditionally refer to their faith as Mazdayasna daēnā (Middle Persian: dēn ī Māzdēsn ) (religion of Mazdā) and to themselves as Mazdayasna (Middle Persian: Māzdēsn ) (worshipers of Mazdā), thus acknowledging worship of Ahura Mazdā (Wise Lord) as God and creator. The Fravarānē (Profession of faith) begins with the Avestan words: “I profess myself a worshiper of Mazdā, a follower of Zarathushtra, opposing the demons, accepting the doctrine of the Ahura.” developed into the major religion—theologically, demographically, and politically—of Iran and Central Asia between the sixth century bce and the tenth century ce, enjoying royal patronage from various dynasties. During those centuries it influenced Hellenistic, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs through contact between members of those communities and Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians assimilated aspects of monotheism and hagiography from the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions. After the Arab conquest of Iran and Central Asia in the seventh century ce, Zoroastrianism gradually lost adherents through conversion to Islam. During the tenth century, some adherents migrated to India, forming the minority Parsi (Persian) community that flourishes there into the twenty-first century but became endogamic within Hindu society. By the thirteenth century, Irani Zoroastrians also had become a confessional minority. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Zoroastrians relocated from Iran and India to other countries. Based on recent demographic assessments, the faith has a following of approximately 300,000 persons worldwide.
The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology.
Chapters 40 through 48 of the Book of Isaiah offer striking parallels with the third and fourth verses of Gāthā 44. Besides the common procedure of rhetorical questions, there is the notion of a god who has created the world and, notably, light and darkness. The very idea of a creator god may be common to all of the western part of the Semitic world. But the notion that God created light and darkness appears in both prophets. It is true that Zarathustra associates light and darkness only to waking and sleep and that no Iranian text says that God created good and evil. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition, in the Book of Isaiah, of light–darkness with good–evil sounds remarkably Iranian.
After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the house of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing human beings into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so strongly that many scholars attribute it to the influence of that country.
The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology.
Chapters 40 through 48 of the Book of Isaiah offer striking parallels with the third and fourth verses of Gāthā 44. Besides the common procedure of rhetorical questions, there is the notion of a god who has created the world and, notably, light and darkness. The very idea of a creator god may be common to all of the western part of the Semitic world. But the notion that God created light and darkness appears in both prophets. It is true that Zarathustra associates light and darkness only to waking and sleep and that no Iranian text says that God created good and evil. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition, in the Book of Isaiah, of light–darkness with good–evil sounds remarkably Iranian.
After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the house of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing human beings into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so strongly that many scholars attribute it to the influence of that country.
