Zoroaster

← Encyclopedia

Of the man at the source of the religion, almost nothing reaches us except his own voice — and that voice survives only because his community kept singing it. No tomb, no inscription, no contemporary notice, no civic record locates Zaraθuštra Spitāma in the world. What endures is seventeen hymns in an archaic Iranian tongue, preserved by recitation across three thousand years before they were ever written down, addressed in the first person to a god and answered, in the poet’s hearing, by that god. The historical horizon of the Mazdean tradition is therefore not a documented life but a transmitted voice, and the distance between the two is the discipline within which everything about him must be said.

His name takes many forms. In his own Old Avestan he is Zaraθuštra Spitāma; the Greeks rendered him Zōroastrēs, whence the Latin and English Zoroaster; Middle Persian made him Zardušt, modern Persian Zartošt, the Gujarati of the Indian community Zarathosht. The faith he is held to have founded calls itself Mazdayasna, the worship of (Ahura) Mazdā, and names its adherent a behdin, one of the good religion — the daēnā vaŋuhī, the good vision, that underlies the whole self-understanding of the tradition. He stands, in his community’s account, as the prophet who turned the old Iranian polytheism toward a single Wise Lord and recast the cosmos as a contest between truth and the lie.

The dating problem

When he lived is the most contested chronological question in the field, and the contest does not resolve. Two positions hold the ground. The first is a traditional date, recorded in late Pahlavi sources and reaching back through Greek and Sasanian-period chronographies, that places him “258 years before Alexander” — a reckoning that yields a floruit in the seventh or sixth century BCE, roughly contemporary with the rise of the Achaemenid empire. The second is a linguistic date, grounded in the close grammatical and lexical kinship between the language of the oldest hymns and the language of the Ṛgveda, which carries the prophet back into the second millennium BCE. The Encyclopaedia Iranica’s survey by Gherardo Gnoli summarizes that academic opinion, basing its case on linguistic analysis of the oldest texts, suggests a date roughly around 1300 BCE (iranicaonline.org). Mary Boyce argued from the social world the hymns describe — a stone-and-bronze pastoral economy of warrior-herdsmen and priests, with no cities, no writing, no political horizon resembling the Persian empires — for a date near 1700–1500 BCE. Almut Hintze locates the milieu in southern Central Asia, with Iranian tribes moving south across the plateau around the middle of the second millennium. The geography is firmer than the chronology: the hymns and the later scripture name the eastern lands — the Helmand basin, Areia, Margiana, Sogdiana, Khwarezm, Bactria — and the eastern character of the language confirms it. Western and southwestern Iran, Persis and Media, belong to the religion’s later expansion, not its origin. The entry that follows holds both datings open; the texts permit each, and the evidence to decide between them does not exist.

The Gathas

The hymns ascribed to him are the five Gathas, embedded within the Yasna, the chief act of Mazdean worship: Yasna 28–34, 43–46, 47–50, 51, and 53 — seventeen compositions in Old (Gathic) Avestan, marked off from the surrounding liturgy by their archaic grammar, their tightly wrought Indo-Iranian meters, and above all by a first-person voice that addresses Ahura Mazdā directly and reports the god’s reply. Tradition and modern philology alike treat them as the words of Zarathushtra himself. They are theological poetry of extreme density: many words occur only once, the syntax is compressed past the point of certainty, and the great Middle Persian commentary, the Zand, was composed when Old Avestan had long ceased to be spoken and reads the verses through a much later doctrinal lens. The major modern renderings — Christian Bartholomae, Helmut Humbach, Stanley Insler, Jean Kellens and Eric Pirart (who read the hymns as ritual rather than personal confession) — diverge sharply line by line. To translate the Gathas is already to take a position on what their author taught.

The choice between truth and the lie

The teaching the tradition draws from them is built on a choice. Beneath everything stands the opposition of aša — Old Avestan for truth, order, the right course of things, cognate with the Vedic ṛta — against druj, the lie, deceit, the disordering of what should hold. The hymns name aša with extraordinary frequency; every human life, in the Mazdean frame, is the choice between strengthening truth in the cosmos and feeding the lie. This is articulated in the threefold rule that the later tradition made its signature: humata, hūxta, huvaršta — good thoughts, good words, good deeds — the practical form of allegiance to aša.

The choice is mirrored at the origin of things. Yasna 30.3 names two primal spirits, “the twins, renowned to be in conflict,” the bounteous spirit (Spənta Mainyu) and the destructive spirit (Aŋra Mainyu), opposed in thought, word, and deed as the better and the bad. Whether the bounteous spirit is identical with Ahura Mazdā or is rather a hypostasis of his creative aspect is an old and unsettled question; the Younger Avestan and Pahlavi layers collapse the distinction and set Ohrmazd and Ahriman in direct polar opposition. From this follows the long argument over whether the religion is best called monotheist or dualist — an argument that turns, in large part, on which layer of the tradition one reads. The Gathas can be heard in a strongly monotheist key, with Ahura Mazdā as sole creator and the evil principle a chosen or created opposite; the cosmology of the later Bundahišn presents an unambiguous metaphysical dualism of two uncreated principles in conflict until the end of time; the Zurvanite myth, attested mainly in hostile foreign sources, makes both descend from a prior Time. Shaul Shaked has argued that the bare choice between monotheism and dualism misses the structure entirely: Ahura Mazdā is supreme and wholly good, yet the evil principle is no illusion, opposing, and not reducible to a mere absence of good.

Ahura Mazdā and the Bounteous Immortals

Ahura Mazdā, the Wise Lord (Middle Persian Ohrmazd), is the good creator from whom the ordered world proceeds. Below him stand the six Amesha Spentas, the Bounteous Immortals — Vohu Manah (Good Mind), Aša Vahišta (Best Truth), Xšaθra Vairya (Desirable Dominion), Spənta Ārmaiti (Holy Devotion), Hauruuatāt (Wholeness), and Amərətāt (Immortality) — each at once a divine being, an ethical principle, and the guardian of a domain of creation: cattle, fire, the metals and sky, the earth, the waters, and the plants. With Ahura Mazdā they make a heptad; with the human creature added to the six guarded realms, the seven creations form the Mazdean inventory of the world. Each has an antithetical counterpart on the side of druj — Vohu Manah against Aka Manah, the evil mind, and so down the list — so that every region of the world becomes a field where the corresponding virtue can be enacted or betrayed. Whether the Amesha Spentas are hypostatized abstractions, older deities reorganized into a hierarchy subordinate to the Wise Lord, or ritual-functional entities is, again, a matter the texts leave open. Around and below them range the yazatas, the beings worthy of worship, among them Miθra and the fravašis, the pre-existent guardian-souls of the righteous, celebrated in one of the longest hymns of the corpus.

The bridge and the renovation

The Mazdean account of the last things works on two scales. At death the soul lingers near the body three days and on the dawn of the fourth is led to the Cinuuatō pərətu, the Bridge of the Separator, where it is judged by the triad Mihr, Sraoša, and Rašnu — covenant, hearkening, and justice. There the soul meets its daēnā, the embodiment of all it has done, who appears to the righteous as a radiant maiden and to the wicked as a foul hag; the bridge itself broadens to a road for the truthful and narrows to a blade for the deceitful, who fall from it into the House of the Lie. Souls whose good and evil exactly balance pass to an intermediate place of mild suffering until the end of the age.

Above this individual reckoning stands Frašō.kərəti (Middle Persian frashegird), the making-wonderful, the final renovation. The Bundahišn frames cosmic history as twelve thousand years in four acts — pure spiritual creation, material creation, the mixed state in which the destructive spirit’s assault intermingles good and evil, and the separation that ends it. At the climax a savior, the Saoshyant Astuuat̰.ərəta, raised from the prophet’s miraculously preserved seed, leads the resurrection of the dead: the metals of the earth melt into a river of fire through which every soul passes, the righteous as through warm milk, the wicked as through purifying flame, and the world is restored to a perfection that this time cannot fall. The Mazdean eschaton is universalist — hell is emptied, the destructive principle annulled, and all souls in the end are saved. This is the eschatology that has made the tradition a perennial comparandum, and the comparison is where the entry’s stakes for the wider history of religion lie.

The contested influence

Several features that mark post-exilic Judaism, early Christianity, and Gnosticism find precise antecedents in the Mazdean material: bodily resurrection, an articulated heaven and hell, a final judgment, a cosmic struggle between God and an evil counter-power, a developed angelology, an end-time savior, fire as eschatological purification. Whether these constitute influence has been argued for two centuries and is not resolved. The maximalist case — developed by Boyce, R. C. Zaehner, Geo Widengren, James Barr, and Shaul Shaked — holds that the Achaemenid period, in which Judah was a Persian province, brought sustained contact between Judean elites and Iranian religion at a time when Mazdean eschatology and angelology were already formed and available for transmission, and that the new apocalyptic features of late Second Temple literature are best explained as catalyzed by that contact. The minimalist case — represented by Edwin Yamauchi, by parts of Albert de Jong’s work, and by specialists in Second Temple Judaism — answers that the chronology is unsafe: the Zoroastrian texts in which the parallel doctrines are written down are mostly post-Sasanian, redacted centuries after the same doctrines are already attested in Jewish and Christian sources, so the influence may run the other way, or both may draw on a common ancient Near Eastern matrix, or develop independently. The dispute turns on the gap between the oral maturation of Mazdean doctrine and its surviving textual attestation, and no flat verdict — neither that Iran gave the West its heaven and hell, nor that the parallels are accident — survives contact with the evidence. The closest sovereign reworking of Iranian dualist materials into a new religion was achieved in the third century by the prophet Mani, whose synthesis drew Zoroastrian, Christian, Gnostic, and Buddhist strands into a single church, and whose career belongs to the same late-antique Iranian and Mesopotamian world in which these questions were lived rather than debated.

Three Zoroasters

The figure who matters to the Western esoteric tradition is, strictly, three figures held under one name, and keeping them apart is the discipline of the subject.

The first is the historical priest-poet of the Gathas — the prophet of aša, recoverable only as a voice.

The second is the Greco-Roman magus. To the classical world Zoroaster was the archetype of the Persian sage and the inventor of mageia, credited with astrological, magical, and oracular books he never wrote. The doxographers assigned him impossible antiquity — thousands of years before the Trojan War — and made his name a guarantee of barbarian wisdom. The whole apparatus of these outside reports, with their polemical and doxographical frames intact, was cataloged by Albert de Jong in Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Brill, 1997 brill.com), the standard reference on how the Iranian prophet looked from outside his own tradition.

The third is the Renaissance Zoroaster, a construct of reception built on the second. When the Byzantine philosopher Georgios Gemistos Plethon brought to Italy a recension of the Chaldean Oracles — verse fragments of the second century CE — he attributed them to the Magi who were the disciples of Zoroaster, and so installed the Persian as the fountainhead of a recovered ancient theology. Marsilio Ficino made the attribution structural: in the genealogy of the prisci theologi set out in his Theologia Platonica, the line of ancient wisdom runs from Zoroaster through Mercurius Trismegistus — the Egyptian Hermes — Orpheus, Aglaophemus, and Pythagoras, and culminates in Plato (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu). Giovanni Pico della Mirandola carried the same Zoroaster into his program of a concordant ancient revelation. This prisca theologia Zoroaster — patron of an oracular corpus he had no part in, paired and contrasted with Hermes Trismegistus as a twin source of pre-Christian truth — is the figure who entered Western esotericism, and he is a reception-layer construct, not a fourth person. The line was carried forward into the twentieth century by Henry Corbin, whose reading of Iranian Islamic philosophy restored the visionary Mazdean cosmos to the center of a whole hermeneutic of the imaginal.

A separate question is the relation of the Iranian yazata Miθra, who receives the great Mihr Yašt, to the Mithraic mysteries of the Roman west — a contested comparison rather than an identity, and one of the several points where the Mazdean world touches the religious history of the Mediterranean without merging into it.

The text and the scholarship

The recovery of the historical Zoroaster from the reception layers is the work of modern Iranian studies, and it rests on a thin and late manuscript base: every printed Avesta descends from a tradition that begins, at earliest, in the late thirteenth century, more than two millennia after the most economical date of the Gathic stratum. The first European critical edition was N. L. Westergaard’s (Copenhagen, 1852–54); Karl Geldner’s Avesta, die heiligen Bücher der Parsen (Stuttgart, 1886–96) remains standard. The reference frame for everything is the Encyclopaedia Iranica, whose multi-part article on Zoroaster — including Gnoli’s survey of the dating (iranicaonline.org) — is the indispensable starting point. The dating debate is staked out in Boyce’s A History of Zoroastrianism (Brill, 3 vols., 1975–91) and her programmatic “On the Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic” (BSOAS 47, 1984, 57–75); the classical reception in de Jong’s Traditions of the Magi; the dualism question in Shaked’s Dualism in Transformation (1994) and Zaehner’s Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (1955), whose Zurvanite reconstruction de Jong has since substantially revised. Prods Oktor Skjærvø’s The Spirit of Zoroastrianism (Yale, 2011) and the Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism (2015) give the current synthesis. The Gathas themselves are accessible in D. J. Irani’s verse rendering (avesta.org), and the precise crux of Yasna 30.3 — the verse of the two spirits on which the whole reading of the prophet’s dualism turns — has its own dedicated study, “The Twins Stanza, Y 30.3,” in Iranian Studies (cambridge.org).

The living veneration

He is not only a figure of scholarship and reception. The communities that keep his memory are continuous and present: the Parsis of India, whose forebears crossed by sea from the Iranian plateau after the Arab conquest and settled in Gujarat, and the Iranian Zoroastrians of Yazd and Kerman, with a global diaspora beyond both. In their worship Zarathushtra is the prophet who first sang the choice between truth and the lie, and the rule he is held to have given — good thoughts, good words, good deeds — is recited as the working summary of a whole way of standing in the world. The communities debate among themselves, sharply, the questions of conversion, of intermarriage, and of how the dead may be disposed of without defiling fire, earth, or water; these are matters of their own self-understanding and are carried forward as such. Across the threshold of every consecrated fire-temple, where the flame is tended as the visible sign of aša, the prophet of the Gathas is named in the first person his hymns gave him, the voice still answering the Wise Lord it once questioned.

→ In the library: The Chaldean Oracles (Mead, 1908)

→ Related: Avesta · Mithraic Mysteries · Sasanian Iranian Wisdom Tradition · Achaemenid Empire · Prisca Theologia · Hermes Trismegistus · Plethon · Dualism · Mani · Iranian Islamic Philosophy Corbin