4 ms·

For some reason the exact dates have become an issue. From Wikipedia we know there is no consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster https://en.wikipedi

For some reason the exact dates have become an issue. From Wikipedia we know there is no consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster "Dating is uncertain as there is no scholarship consensus,[3] as on linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, he is dated around 1000 BCE and earlier, but others put him in the 7th and 6th century BCE as a contemporary or near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius I.[4][5][6][7] " And you can follow the links there. There are two important distinctions we, who write comments here, should make: 1. There is a difference between when a historical figure is reputed to have lived, and when the first influential texts based on that figure came into being. The text often has a stronger claim to historical influence and is certainly easier to locate in time. 2. There is a difference between an abstract idea that someone thought of "first" and the version of that idea that actually birthed the version that we know. So, for instance, if there was a historical figure in a cave who never wrote anything, but merely thought of monotheism, that is not the same thing as a written text that was read by Abraham, or the writer of the text in which Abraham appeared. All this is just to say, let's be clear on what we are arguing, at least.

baldfat 9y ago
Just bad academic research. I ran into it all the time as a Theology Student. People from other Academic Disciplines would repeat something without a reference and it would become its own self referencing statement that after further investigation just proved to be some lazy scholarship by people not in the field. Like a historian making chemistry statements.
- cat199 9y ago
  The main point of this article in my opinion, is not so much Zoroastrianism itself, as it is the conclusion that: " Iran’s many other legacies and influences aside, the all but forgotten religion of Zoroastrianism just might provide the key to understanding how similar ‘we’ are to ‘them’. " and so I would similarly presume that any editorial slant would likely take the loosest scholarly opinion to suit this thesis..

baldfat 9y ago

Just bad academic research. I ran into it all the time as a Theology Student. People from other Academic Disciplines would repeat something without a reference and it would become its own self referencing statement that after further investigation just proved to be some lazy scholarship by people not in the field. Like a historian making chemistry statements.

cat199 9y ago
The main point of this article in my opinion, is not so much Zoroastrianism itself, as it is the conclusion that: " Iran’s many other legacies and influences aside, the all but forgotten religion of Zoroastrianism just might provide the key to understanding how similar ‘we’ are to ‘them’. " and so I would similarly presume that any editorial slant would likely take the loosest scholarly opinion to suit this thesis..