Did Zarathustra exist or what?

[neutrino_cannon]

If you really want to find out, look and see who the scholars dealing with Zarathustra/Zoroaster are. The speculation of laypersons can be fun, but researching who knows what in the field is probably a better way to answer the question.

I've done a wee bit of research (and frankly I'm tired of that for the time being. Too many wackos making odd claims about Zoroastrianism), but the point of the thread was mostly rhetorical. Some posters saw the point very quickly: Jesus' existence is disputed when his image is almost certainly based someone from the attested time and area and the general prophet's mould. While there are no secular contemporaneous histories talking about the guy, he almost certainly existed in some form or another.

I'm given to agree with the argument that Zoroastrianism is the common root of Western monotheism, and that the early Jews were henotheistic until contact with Zoroastrians during the Captivity period. If that's true, Zarathustra is almost as important a figure in the development of modern religion as Jesus. What is interesting to me is that his existence is not disputed, although we know so much less about him.

Granted, I haven't looked into it that much, but it seems entirely possible to me (albeit somewhat unlikely) that the ancient Iranian religion was not reformed by a single prophet. Just as it's possible that the Zoroastrians heavily influence the Jews, it's possible that Persian monotheism was derived from an Abrahamic root. This would seriously throw doubt upon the traditional conception of the Iranian sage, but I've never seen this seriously contended.

I guess my point is that those who prefer revisionist claims about Christ could easily make a far more compelling case for another religious figure but choose not to. Far be it from me to suggest that is because they make reactionary, reflexively iconoclastic and barely tenable hypotheses. Far be it from me to suggest that Zarathustra would be a center of widespread and heated debate if religious historians actually cared about history. Far be it from me to suggest that most religious scholarship isn't scholarship.

 

[geni]

I'm given to agree with the argument that Zoroastrianism is the common root of Western monotheism, and that the early Jews were henotheistic until contact with Zoroastrians during the Captivity period. If that's true, Zarathustra is almost as important a figure in the development of modern religion as Jesus. What is interesting to me is that his existence is not disputed, although we know so much less about him.

Zoroastrianism is not really an example of monotheism though. Ditheism maybe. The problem with the Zoroastrianism heavily influnced Judaism theory is that there are key elements of Zoroastrianism that have no parrellel in judaism.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That would also be an argument against the "Judaism heavily influenced Christianity theory", which we know to be true.

 

[geni]

That would also be an argument against the "Judaism heavily influenced Christianity theory", which we know to be true.

Yes and no. It does appear that Paul was looking for a pretty clear break with Judaism.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Zoroastrianism is not really an example of monotheism though. Ditheism maybe. The problem with the Zoroastrianism heavily influnced Judaism theory is that there are key elements of Zoroastrianism that have no parrellel in judaism.

Zoroastrianism is effectively no more dualistic than strains of Christianity which heavily emphasize the influence of the Devil. There are differences between the cosmological standing of the good and the evil forces, but it's not like mainstream Zoroastrians have anything to do with Angra Mainyu.

You could make the case that Zurvanism was much more of a dualistic religion, as they contended that Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda were only manifestations of the creator Zurvan, but they do not exist anymore. The views of Zoroastrians on Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are analogous to the views of the Abrahamic religions on God and Satan respectively.

Yes, there are aspects of Zoroastrianism that never caught on in Judaism. I have not seen, for example, and Jewish fire temples of late. They are, however, different religions and it's hardly reasonable to think that all the ideas would migrate. Look at the American transcendentalists, who were clearly influenced by Hindu texts but far from entirely Hindu. During the Captivity the Jews would have retained their cultural identity, but not without a little Zoroastrianism rubbing off on them.

 

[alfaniner]

Not a composit ... a composer. Didn't he write the music for 2001?

And did he not also speak thus?

(sorry, this far into the thread and no one said it yet)