Criticism of Zoroastrianism

In the early 19th century, a Christian missionary based in British India, John Wilson, claimed that Zoroaster never had a genuine divine commission (or ever claimed such a role),^[2] never performed miracles, or uttered prophecies and that the story of his life is "a mere tissue of comparatively modern fables and fiction".^[3][4] Others assert that all the available Zoroastrian sources regarding Zoroaster only provide conflicting images about him,^[5] especially between earlier and later sources.^[6]

The Yashts are a collection of twenty-one hymns in the Younger Avestan language. Each of these hymns invokes a specific Zoroastrian divinity or concept. Yasht chapter and verse pointers are traditionally abbreviated as Yt.

Critics commonly claim that Zoroastrians are worshipers of other deities and elements of nature, such as of fire, with one prayer, the Litany to the fire (Atesh Niyaesh),^[7] stating: "I invite, I perform (the worship) of you, the Fire, O son of Ahura Mazdā together with all fires and Mithra.^[8] Some critics have charged Zoroastrians with being followers of dualism, who only claimed to be followers of monotheism in modern times to confront the powerful influence of Christian and Western thought which "hailed monotheism as the highest category of theology".^[9] Critics insist that the monotheistic reformist view is seen to contradict the conservative (or traditional) view of a dualistic worldview most evident in the relationship between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.^[10] and arguing that Zoroastrians follow a belief system influenced by henotheism. Other Western scholars such as Martin Haug, however, have dismissed the concept of theological dualism as a corruption of Zoroaster's original teachings, gradually added by later adherents of the faith.^[11] Critics add that the fact that such differing views have proliferated is a sign of the enigmatic nature of the Zoroastrian beliefs regarding the divinity.^[12]

The Denkard is a 10th-century compendium of Zoroastrian beliefs and customs during the time. The Denkard is to a great extent considered an "Encyclopedia of Mazdaism" and is a valuable source of Zoroastrian literature especially during its Middle Persian iteration. The Denkard is not considered a sacred text by a majority of Zoroastrians, but is still considered worthy of study, in chapter 21, the book urges the worship of the sun and other creatures.^[13]

 

Ethical and ontological dualism in the same entity "accounts for the difficulty which some aspects of the doctrine have presented for Western scholars".^[14] The reverence of the Amesha Spenta and the Yazatas has been frequently attacked by non-Zoroastrian sources for its polytheist nature, not only in modern times but also the Sassanid era. While the "worship of the elements" was a repeated accusation during the 4th and 5th centuries, ⁣^[15] Christian missionaries (such as John Wilson^[16]) in 19th-century India specifically targeted the immanence of the Amesha Spenta as indicative of (in their view) a Zoroastrian polytheistic tradition worthy of attack.^[17][18]

A frequent target for criticism was the Zoroastrian credo in which the adherent declares, "I profess to be a worshiper of Mazda, follower of the teachings of Zoroaster, ... one who praises and reveres the Amesha Spenta" (the Fravaraneh, Yasna 12.1). Some modern Zoroastrian theologians, especially those identifying with the Reformist school of thought, believe that ethereal spirit and physical manifestation are not separable in any sense and that a reverence of Ahura Mazda's creations is ultimately a worship of the Creator.^[15]

In the second half of the 19th century, Martin Haug proposed^[19] that Zoroaster himself had viewed the Amesha Spenta as merely philosophical abstractions and that a personification of the heptad was really a later corruption. The Parsis of Bombay gratefully accepted Haug's premise as a defense against the Christian missionaries and subsequently disseminated the idea as a Parsi interpretation, which corroborated Haug's theory. The "continuing monotheism" principle eventually became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine.^[20][17][18]

Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that a Greek religion influenced Zoroastrianism.

In consequence of Alexander's conquest, the Iranian religion was almost totally submerged by the wave of Hellenism. At Susa, for instance, which had been one of the capital cities of the Achaemenids but where the religion of Auramazda was not indigenous, the coinage of the Seleucid and Arsacid periods does not represent a single Iranian deity. Then the Iranian religion gradually emerged again. In Commagene in the middle of the 1st century bce, gods bear combinations of Greek and Iranian names: Zeus Oromazdes, Apollo Mithra, Helios Hermes, Artagnes Herakles Ares. The first proof of the use of a Zoroastrian calendar, implying the official recognition of Zoroastrianism, is found some 40 years earlier at Nisa (near modern Ashgabat in Turkmenistan). By then some form of orthodoxy must have been established in which Auramazda and the entities (powers surrounding him) adjoin other gods such as Mithra, the Sun, and the Moon.

— [1]

Aramazd was the chief and creator god in the Armenian version of Zoroastrianism.^[21] The deity and his name were derived from the deity Ahura Mazda after the Median conquest of Armenia in the 6th century BC.^[22] Aramazd was regarded as a generous god of fertility, rain, and abundance, as well as the father of the other gods, including Anahit, Mihr, and Nane. Like Ahura Mazda, Aramazd was seen as the father of the other gods, rarely with a wife, though sometimes husband to Anahit or Spandaramet. Aramazd was the Parthian form of Ahura Mazda.^[23]

Armenian Zoroastrianism was highly secretive and contained within itself the shadow of the Armenian deities, who in Zoroastrianism took on the role of Yazatas, A Zoroastrian magi, speaking about the characteristics of Zoroastrianism in Armenia, expressed himself in this way:

We do not worship the years of the earth like you, the sun and the moon, the winds and the fire.[24]

In the 14th century, Mkhitar Aparantsi wrote about a group of people who worship the sun and named in Armenian language ( Արևորդիներ ) and mention Zoroaster:^[25]

There are also some Armenians who speak the Armenian language and worship the sun, and they are called Arivurdi. They have no letters or writing, and the fathers educate their children according to the legends that their ancestors learned from the magician Zarathustra, the head of the temple. They worship the sun, turning their faces to it, and honor the tree – the poplar, and among the flowers – the lily, the cotton, and others, which always face the sun. They consider themselves like them [the flowers] in faith and high and fragrant deeds, and they offer sacrifices [for the salvation of the souls of] the dead and bring all [church] taxes to the Armenian priest. Their leader is called Azarapet, and every year twice or more all – men and women, sons and daughters – gather together at a very dark time in one hidden place and are naked, and Azarapet reads to them [the sermon] and the rings

 

Zurvanism is a fatalistic religious movement of Zoroastrianism in which the divinity Zurvan is a first principle (primordial creator deity) who engendered equal-but-opposite twins, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Zurvanism is also known as "Zurvanite Zoroastrianism", and may be contrasted with Mazdaism, Zurvan was perceived as the god of infinite time and space and also known as "one" or "alone". Zurvan was portrayed as a transcendental and neutral god without passion; one for whom there was no distinction between good and evil. The name Zurvan is a normalized rendition of the word, which in Middle Persian appears as either Zurvān, Zruvān or Zarvān. The Middle Persian name derives from Avestan (Avestan: 𐬰𐬭𐬎𐬎𐬁𐬥, romanized: zruuān, lit. 'time', a grammatically neuter noun).

Unlike Mazdean Zoroastrianism, Zurvanism considered Ahura Mazda not the transcendental Creator, but one of two equal-but-opposite divinities under the supremacy of Zurvan. The central Zurvanite belief made Ahura Mazda (Middle Persian: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) twin brothers that had co-existed for all time.^[26]

The earliest evidence of the cult of Zurvan is found in the History of Theology, attributed to Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370-300 B.C.E.). As cited in Damascius's Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (sixth century CE), Eudemus describes a sect of the Persians that considered Space/Time to be the primordial "father" of the rivals Oromasdes of Light and Arimanius of Darkness.^[27]

Also, while the Armenian and Syriac sources depict the religion of the Sassanids as having been distinctly Zurvanite, the later native commentaries are primarily Mazdean and with only one exception (10th c. Denkard 9.30) do not mention Zurvan at all. Of the remaining so-called Pahlavi texts only two, the Mēnōg-i Khrad and the "Selections of Zatspram" (both 9th c.) reveal a Zurvanite tendency. The latter is considered to be the latest Zoroastrian text that provides any evidence of the cult of Zurvan. The foreign accounts of the Zurvanite father-of-twins doctrine is substantiated by only a single Persian language source, the Ulema-i Islam ("Doctors of Islam", 13th c.), that, notwithstanding the title, is evidently by a Zoroastrian.^[28]

 

There is a puzzling question, which is: why the cult of Zurvan vanished, while Mazdaism did not, remains an issue of scholarly debate. Arthur Christensen, one of the first proponents of the theory that Zurvanism was the state religion of the Sasanians, suggested that the rejection of Zurvanism in the post-conquest epoch was a response and reaction to the new authority of Islamic monotheism that brought about a deliberate reform of Zoroastrianism that aimed to establish a stronger orthodoxy.^[29]

Robert Charles Zaehner opines that the Zurvanite priesthood had a strict orthodoxy which few could tolerate. Moreover, they interpreted the Prophet's message so dualistically that their God was made to appear very much less than all-powerful and all-wise. As reasonable as it might have appeared from a purely intellectual point of view, such an absolute dualism had neither the appeal of a real monotheism nor any mystical element with which to nourish its inner life.^[30]

Another possible explanation postulated by Boyce, is that Mazdaism and Zurvanism were divided regionally, that is, with Mazdaism being the predominant tendency in the regions to the north and east, Bactria, Margiana, and other satrapies closest to Zoroaster's homeland, while Zurvanism was prominent in regions to the south and west, closer to Babylonian and Greek influence and this is supported by Manichaean evidence that indicates that 3rd century Mazdean Zoroastrianism had its stronghold in Parthia, to the northeast. Following the fall of the Persian Empire, the south and west were relatively quickly assimilated under the banner of Islam, while the north and east remained independent for some time before these regions too were absorbed, this could also explain why armenian-syriac observations reveal a distinctly Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, and inversely, could explain the strong Greek and Babylonian influence on Zurvanism.^[31]

Darius clearly states in the Biston Inscription that "I am the king by the will of Ahuramazda, and Ahuramazda has entrusted me with power." (Paragraph) This stone inscription does not give us much information about the religious issues of the time. This raises the question: Is the religion mentioned in this stone inscription a type of Zoroastrian religion?^[32]

What is common between the Zoroastrian inscriptions and the Achaemenid inscriptions is the name of Ahuramazda, the presence of the Divan, and the principles of falsehood and truth. But in these inscriptions other gods are mentioned.^[33]

 

In the Sassanid period, Zaradust-e Khuragen founded a new sect called Dar al-Din or Zoroastrianism after himself. He became acquainted with Greek philosophical books, including Plato's Republic, and was influenced by Plato's Utopia. The ideas of Zoroastrian Khuragen, which were mostly economic and social, were introduced to Persian society through his disciple Mazdak. Malalas relates that during the reign of Diocletian, two hundred years earlier, a Manichaean man named Pundus of Mazdak appeared in Rome, with new ideas and opposed to the official Manichaean religion. It is from the words of Bodis: The god of good fought the god of evil and defeated him, so here it is necessary to worship God. Zoroaster Khorgan was in fact a theorist and founder of a tradition that aimed to return to the originality and monotheism (according to his own understanding of the meaning of monotheism, which was a god of good and a god of evil), the great prophet of ancient Iran, and he encouraged the Sassanid kings to follow this tradition, because in those days when the two principles had different interpretations and explanations of the Zoroastrian religion, the people were disturbed and confused.^[34]

 

Mazdak was an Iranian Zoroastrian mobad (priest) and religious reformer who gained influence during the reign of the Sasanian emperor Kavadh I. He claimed to be a prophet of Ahura Mazda and instituted social welfare programs.

According to classical sources, not long after Sukhra's execution, a mobad (priest) named Mazdak caught Kavad's attention. Mazdak was the chief representative of a religious and philosophical movement called Mazdakism. Not only did it consist of theological teachings, but it also advocated for political and social reforms that would impact the nobility and clergy.^[35][36]

 

The Mazdak movement was nonviolent and called for the sharing of wealth, women and property,^[37] an archaic form of communism.^[38] According to modern historians Touraj Daryaee and Matthew Canepa, 'sharing women' was most likely an overstatement and defamation deriving from Mazdak's decree that loosened marriage laws to help the lower classes.^[36] Powerful families saw this as a tactic to weaken their lineage and advantages, which was most likely the case.^[36] Kavad used the movement as a political tool to curb the power of the nobility and clergy.^[38][37] Royal granaries were distributed, and land was shared among the lower classes.^[35]

The historicity of the persona of Mazdak has been questioned.^[39] He may have been a fabrication to take the blame away from Kavad.^[40] Contemporary historians, including Procopius and Joshua the Stylite make no mention of Mazdak naming Kavad as the figure behind the movement.^[40] Mention of Mazdak only emerges in later Middle Persian Zoroastrian documents, namely the Bundahishn, the Denkard, and the Zand-i Wahman yasn.^[40] Later Islamic-era sources, particularly al-Tabari, also mention Mazdak.^[40] These later writings were perhaps corrupted by Iranian oral folklore, given that blame put on Mazdak for the redistribution of aristocratic properties to the people, is a topic repeated in Iranian oral history.^[40]

The orientalist Arthur Christensen in his book ''Iran During The Sassanid Era'', mentioned that the sources dating back to the era of the Sasanian state in ancient Persian that refer to the Zoroastrian doctrine do not match the sources that appeared after the collapse of the state, such as the Pahlavi source and others. The reason is that because of the fall of the Sasanian state, the Zoroastrian clerics tried to save their religion from extinction through modifying it to resemble the religion of Muslims to retain followers in the Zoroastrian religion.^[41]

 

Gherardo Gnoli comments that the Islamic conquest of Persia caused a huge impact on the Zoroastrian doctrine.

After the Islamic conquest of Persia and the migration of many Zoroastrians to India and after being exposed to Islamic and Christian propaganda, the Zoroastrians, especially the Parsis in India, went so far as to deny dualism and consider themselves completely monotheists. After several transformations and developments, one of the distinctive features of the Zoroastrian religion gradually faded away and almost disappeared from modern Zoroastrianism

— ^[42]

According to Bernard Lewis, the reason for the decline of Zoroastrianism was that the Zoroastrian clergy were too closely tied to the power structure of ancient Iran. The loss of this base and the lack of friends outside Iran, as well as the lack of strong survival skills like the Jews, caused frustration and reduced their numbers.^[43]

Donner goes on to say that "Zoroastrians continued to exist in large numbers in northern and western Iran and elsewhere for centuries after the rise of Islam, and indeed, much of the canon of Zoroastrian religious texts was elaborated and written down during the Islamic period"^[44]

 

This provides an explanation of why there are numbers of parallels that have been drawn between Zoroastrian teachings and Islam. Such parallels include the evident similarities between Amesha Spenta and the archangel Gabriel, praying five times a day, covering one's head during prayer, and the mention of Thamud and Iram of the Pillars in the Quran.

The migration of Parsis to India caused a lack of religious knowledge, which led to doubts in several matters, which made them send men to Iran during the Muslim rule in order to learn the religion from the Zoroastrians in Iran. However, according to the orientalist Arthur Christensen and several Arab historians, the Zoroastrian doctrine changed after the fall of the Sassanid state because the Zoroastrian clerics tried to save their religion from extinction by modifying it to resemble the religion of the Muslims. So that the Zoroastrians would not have a reason to convert to Islam, but this did not succeed in preventing the Zoroastrians from converting to Islam, and it also caused the emergence of a new version of Zoroastrianism that resembled Islam and differed from Zoroastrianism in the Sassanid era.^[45][46][47]

Behafarid was an 8th-century Persian Zoroastrian heresiarch^[48] who started a religious peasant revolt with elements from Zoroastrianism and Islam. He believed in Zoroaster and upheld all Zoroastrian institutions. His followers prayed seven times a day facing the Sun, prohibited intoxicants, and kept their hair long and disallowed sacrifices of cattle except when they were decrepit.^[49] His revolt was quelled by the Abbasid general Abu Muslim, and he was executed by hanging. His followers, however, believed that he would descend again. Some of his followers joined the Ustadh Sis movement.

The Ustad sis movement is considered a continuation of the Bhavrid movement, where he claimed prophethood and launched a revolution, but was also suppressed^[50]

 

The Khurramites were founded by the Persian Sunpadh al-Majusi – who was a follower of Abu Muslim al-Khurasani. The Khurramites are a mixture of muslim Shia and Zoroastrian Mazdakism; one of the most important reasons for the Khurramite revolt was revenge for the execution of Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, who was killed by Abu Jaafar al-Mansur.^[51]

Ishaq al-Turk, propagandist sent by Abu Muslim, governor of Khorasan and leading figure in the ʿAbbasid revolution, to the Turkish people of Transoxania. He had Zoroastrian or Khurramites inclinations and, after the caliph al-Manṣūr had Abu Muslim, murdered in 137/755, preached that Abū Moslem had been an apostle of Zoroaster and remained alive in the mountains of Ray, whence he would return (Ebn al-Nadim,ed. Tajaddod, p. 408). He thus gained the allegiance of certain groups who accepted Abu Muslim as imam and even as an emanation of divinity, his message could have been received and spread only among people with Zoroastrian sentiments or those who used such sentiments to promote their own struggle against the Arabs.^[52]

 

Theophobos ^[53] was a commander of the Khurramites who converted to Christianity and entered Byzantine service under Emperor Theophilos (r. 829–843).^[54] Raised to high rank and married into the imperial family, Theophobos was given command of his fellow Khurramites and served under Theophilos in his wars against the Abbasid Caliphate in 837–838. After the Byzantines' defeat at the Battle of Anzen, he was proclaimed emperor by his own men, but did not pursue this claim. Instead he peacefully submitted to Theophilos in the next year and was apparently pardoned, until he was executed by the dying emperor in 842 to prevent a challenge to the accession of Michael III.

 

Al-Muqanna was a persian prophet, who led a revolt in that province against the Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi. Al-Muqnad preached a doctrine that combined elements of Islam and Zoroastrianism, and he continued the war for nearly three years in the field and an additional two years in his fortress at Sanam before he was finally defeated and committed suicide.^[55]

Āzar Kayvān^[a] (b. between c. 1529 and 1533; d. between c. 1609 and 1618) was the Zoroastrian high priest of Istakhr and a gnostic philosopher,^[56] who was a native of Fars, Iran and later emigrated to Patna in the Mughal Empire during the reign of Emperor Akbar. A member of the Sepāsīān community (gorūh),^[57] he became the founder of a Zoroastrian school of ishraqiyyun or Illuminationists, which exhibited features of Sufi Muslim influence. This school became known as the kis-e-Abadi "Abadi sect".^[58]

In 1860s and 1870s, the linguist Martin Haug interpreted Zoroastrian scripture in Christian terms, and compared the yazatas to the angels of Christianity. In this scheme, the Amesha Spentas are the arch-angel retinue of Ahura Mazda, with the hamkars as the supporting host of lesser angels.

 

At the time Haug wrote his translations, the Parsi (i.e. Indian Zoroastrian) community was under intense pressure from English and American missionaries, who severely criticized the Zoroastrians for—as John Wilson portrayed it in 1843—"polytheism", which the missionaries argued was much less worth than their own "monotheism". At the time, Zoroastrianism lacked theologians of its own, and so the Zoroastrians were poorly equipped to make their own case. In this situation, Haug's counter-interpretation came as a welcome relief, and was (by-and-large) gratefully accepted as legitimate.^[59]

Haug's interpretations were subsequently disseminated as Zoroastrian ones, which then eventually reached the west where they were seen to corroborate Haug. Like most of Haug's interpretations, this comparison is today so well entrenched that a gloss of 'yazata' as 'angel' is almost universally accepted; both in publications intended for a general audience^[60][61] as well as in (non-philological) academic literature.^[62][63]

The migration of Parsis to India caused a lack of religious knowledge, which led to doubts in several matters, which made them send men to Iran during the Muslim rule in order to learn the religion from the Zoroastrians in Iran. However, according to the orientalist Arthur Christensen and several Arab historians, the Zoroastrian doctrine changed after the fall of the Sassanid state because the Zoroastrian clerics tried to save their religion from extinction by modifying it to resemble the religion of the Muslims. So that the Zoroastrians would not have a reason to convert to Islam, but this did not succeed in preventing the Zoroastrians from converting to Islam, and it also caused the emergence of a new version of Zoroastrianism that resembled Islam and differed from Zoroastrianism in the Sassanid era..^[64][46][65]

Due to the lack of historical knowledge, it is still not possible to determine the time and place of the origin of Zoroastrianism with precision from the commentaries and reports of the Avesta, or to know how Mazdaism spread in ancient Iran. There is much controversy and doubt in these cases. In this ignorance, the works of Greek and Roman authors and the evidence and proofs from their writings help us. Despite all efforts to organize and review these writings, interpretations and reports sometimes contradict each other on important and fundamental issues. In this contradiction the factor of time and place plays an effective role. Iranian beliefs have undergone many changes and transformations in the vastness of a great empire and during many centuries of adventurous history^[66]

We must take into account that the spread of Zoroastrianism in ancient times was exaggerated, and it is likely that Zoroastrianism was at the beginning of a local movement in eastern Iran whose borders were not yet defined. This new religion faced strong resistance and opposition from the common religions and for a long time could not achieve complete sovereignty and dominance and as it spread it changed. Zoroastrianism mixed with the religions that arose in pursuit of it, and Mazdasina spread in Iran in a completely different way^[67]

Diakonov believes that until the middle of the 6th century BC, it was accepted in the eastern part of the Medes, that is, in the ancient Avesta, and from there its teachings spread with changes to western Iran.^[68]

According to Arthur Christian Senn, in the time of Darius the Great and Xerxes, the Medes were Zoroastrians, and the Magans were religious and spiritual men of the Achaemenids, but the Achaemenid emperors did not follow the Zoroastrian religion and followed a non-Zoroastrian religion.^[69]

The Encyclopædia Iranica indicates that the stories of Zoroaster's life were distorted by quoting stories from Christianity and Judaism and attributing them to Zoroaster, but the most quotations were from Islam after the entry of Muslims into Persia, as it was a means for the Zoroastrian clergy to strengthen their religion.^[70]

The Dasatir-i-Asmani, while being accepted by Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India as genuine, especially by the Kadmi, it is generally believed to be a forgery.^[71]

Wilson argued that the Avesta could not be divinely inspired because much of its text was irrevocably lost or unintelligible^[72][73] and Martin Haug, who greatly helped the Parsis of India to defend their religion against the attacks of such Christian missionaries as Wilson, considered the Gathas to be the only texts and only authoritative scriptures that could be attributed to Zoroaster.^[74]

Zoroastrian reformers, such as Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla, have argued that literary precedence should be given to the Gathas, as a source of authority and textual authenticity. They have also deplored and criticized many Zoroastrian rituals (e.g. excessive ceremonialism and focus on purity,^[75][76] using "bull's urine for ritual cleansing, the attendance of a dog to gaze at the corpse during funerary rites, the exposure of corpses on towers [for consumption by vultures and ravens]")^[77][78] and theological and cosmological doctrines as not befitting of the faith.^[79] This orthodox versus reformist controversy rages even on the internet.^[80]

Divisions and tensions also exist between Iranian and Indian Zoroastrians and over such issues as the authority of a hereditary priesthood in the transmission and interpretation of the faith, ethnicity and the nature of Ahura Mazda.^[81] Historically, differences also existed between the Zoroastrian branches of Zurvanism, Mazdakism and Mazdaism.^[82]

Much like the question of who is a Jew?, Zoroastrian identity, especially whether it is adopted through birth or belief (or both), "remains a cause for tension" within the community.^[83][84] Reformers have criticised the orthodox refusal to accept religious converts as one reason for the communities' declining population.^[85]

Zoroastrianism has been criticized for the perception that it promotes a patriarchal system, expressed through such avenues as an all-male priesthood and its historical allowance of polygamy—practiced by Zoroaster himself.^[86][87][88]

• Boyce, Mary (2001). Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0415239035.
• Canepa, Matthew (2018). The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE. Oakland: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520379206.
• Daryaee, Touraj (2014). Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B.Tauris. pp. 1–240. ISBN 978-0857716668.
• Daryaee, Touraj; Canepa, Matthew (2018). "Mazdak". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-866277-8.
• Dhalla, Maneckji Nusserwanji (1914), Zoroastrian Theology, New York: OUP
• Edwards, E. (1927), "Sacrifice (Iranian)", in Hastings, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. XI, Edinburgh: T & T Clark
• Ellerbrock, Uwe (2021). The Parthians: The Forgotten Empire. Oxford: Routledge. ISBN 978-0367481902.
• Frenschkowski, Marco (2015). "Christianity". In Stausberg, Michael; Vevaina, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw; Tessmann, Anna (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. John Wiley And Sons Ltd. pp. 457–477.
• Frye, R. N. (1983). "The political history of Iran under the Sasanians". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20092-X.
• Gray, Louis H. (1927), "Jews in Zoroastrianism", in Hastings, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VII, Edinburgh: T & T Clark
• La Porta, Sergio (2018). "Zoroastrianism, Armenian". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-866277-8.
• Luhrmann, T. M. (2002), "Evil in the Sands of Time: Theology and Identity Politics among the Zoroastrian Parsis", The Journal of Asian Studies, 61 (3): 861–889, doi:10.2307/3096349, JSTOR 3096349
• Shahbazi, A. Shapur (2005). "Sasanian dynasty". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
• Shayegan, M. Rahim (2017). "Sasanian political ideology". In Potts, Daniel T. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–1021. ISBN 9780190668662.