Philosophia

Out of the mists of ancient history emerges a fascinating religion, one that may have shaped the development of Judaism and thereby Christianity and Islam. Its founding prophet (Zarathustra or Zoroaster) probably lived more than a millennium before Christ—and according to Matthew’s gospel, its priests (the Magi) came to pay homage at his birth. In a world of morally ambivalent paganism, this is a religion that acknowledged one supremely good creator God fighting to cleanse his creation of evil. It held that God will raise the dead at the end of time and that all will be judged based on their freely chosen deeds, to be rewarded or punished accordingly. Zoroastrianism was once the Persian national religion, but since the coming of Islam has been reduced to just over a hundred thousand adherents around the world.

There is considerable debate—both within and outside the Zoroastrian community—as to exactly what kind of religion Zoroastrianism is. It has elements of polytheism, dualism, and monotheism. That it believes in one supremely good and wise creator God would qualify it as a monotheism, but this God has an opponent. Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord) is locked in combat with Angra Mainyu (the Destructive Spirit). Some emphasize the ontological equality of these beings, while others suggest Ahura Mazda should be seen as supreme above his adversary. It depends how you interpret a key verse from the scriptures of Zarathustra:

Now these two spirits, which are twins, revealed themselves at first in a vision. Their two ways of thinking, speaking and acting were the better and the bad. Between these two the wise choose rightly, fools not so.

And then when these two spirits first met, they created both life and not-life, and that there should be at the last the worst dwelling for the followers of Druj (the Lie), but for the followers of Asha (Truth/Right), the best dwelling.

(Yasna 30:3–4)

Traditionally, the “two spirits” are the good Ahura Mazda and the evil Angra Mainyu; that they are twins implies that the one did not create the other, and so the gods of good and evil are equally primordial. This is the dualistic interpretation of the religion. Some in the monotheistic camp claim that Ahura Mazda is not himself one of the “two spirits” referred to, but that it is rather his creation or emanation, Spenta Mainyu—the “Holy Spirit.” In this interpretation, Ahura Mazda gives rise to both spirits, of which the one chooses goodness and the other chooses evil. Problems with this interpretation include that it goes against what most Zoroastrians have historically believed, and that in fact Spenta Mainyu, while being somehow distinct, is very closely identified with Ahura Mazda in the scriptures (akin to the relationship between the Holy Spirit and God the Father in Christianity).

In their 1979 article, Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?, Boyd and Crosby proposed a middle way between these extremes, arguing that Zoroastrianism “combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological 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 that 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 Mazda having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy. But in the meantime there is a vital truth to dualism… (p. 558)

This seems convincing, because as much as the religion emphasizes that God is locked in a real war with his evil adversary, it is confident in the outcome: God will be completely victorious and evil will be eliminated forever. There is even a strong universalist strain in the religion, suggesting that at the end of time the damned will be purified in a deluge of molten metal and freed to live in paradise; evil will not even be left with a hell to dwell in.

Zoroastrianism arguably also contains elements of polytheism, worshipping other beings besides the supreme Ahura Mazda. The most significant of these are the seven Amesha Spentas (the Holy Immortals), which may be seen as either emanations or angels of Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism arose out of the same Indo-European religion that also gave rise to Hinduism, and the Zoroastrian scriptures (the Avesta) have many linguistic and cultural similarities with the Hindu Vedas. There appear to have been two houses of gods: the ahuras/asuras and the devas/daevas. While in India the devas became the gods and the asuras became demons, in Persia the reverse happened. As in the case of YHVH and Allah, Ahura Mazda may have been a pre-existing deity that was ‘elevated’ to the position of supreme being. What’s particularly fascinating is the same thing later happened multiple times in Hinduism, with different devas assuming the status of the absolute God. Deva or Ahura—it doesn’t seem to matter much, for the True God to shine through. And the shining seems to cascade downward, in all religions: in Zoroastrianism, in the Amesha Spentas and lesser divinities; in Christianity, in Christ, Mary, the saints, and their icons; even ruthlessly monotheistic Islam developed veneration of saints, the doctrine that the Qur’an is coeternal with God, etc.

It seems that Zoroastrians introduced the notion of linear time—that history is one line running from an initial creation foward to a grand and final climax. It lacks both the notion of individual reincarnation and of vast recurring cycles of universal time, which are such a central feature of Indian religions. It seems that from the initial Indo-European religion, India went one way and Persia went another: India into the mystical (the outward world thus futile cyclicality), and Persia into the ethical (one life and one history in the real fight between good and evil).

To me, the most important insight of Zoroastrianism lies in seeing God as primarily Good. The problem of evil is eliminated: in no sense did God create it. The price paid for this is seeing evil as equiprimordial with good, but this may be ameliorated somewhat by the assurance that good will ultimately and absolutely prevail. The Wise Lord’s power is not (currently) unlimited, but nevertheless he will win the struggle due to his supreme goodness and wisdom, which the Evil One lacks. He can foresee and adapt to and turn to his own advantage all of his adversary’s attacks. Indeed, goodness and wisdom seem to be closely identified in the Zoroastrian concept of Asha, which is at once intellectual truth and moral righteousness. Likewise, the evil Angra Mainyu stands for Druj, deceit and falsehood. When I think about how a non-omnipotent but supremely good God might do battle with evil, I think of Christ who let all the forces of evil attack him and yet triumphed over them in the most unexpected way. The way Good fights doesn’t look like the way Evil fights, and the superior wisdom of goodness looks foolish to evil eyes.

Zoroastrianism may not have been merely the first monotheism, but the first messianic monotheism, believing a final savior (Saoshyant) will come to defeat evil and restore the world. Intriguingly, it was the Persians who freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. Early Judaism lacked many of the ideas that would later become so important: heaven and hell, bodily resurrection, and the coming Messiah. The God of early Judaism was also much more morally ambivalent, and Satan more of his servant. Is it possible that the Jewish exiles were inspired by the religion of their liberators to incorporate similar ideas into their own religion, which they reformed and developed as they returned to their homeland?