Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic Or Monotheistic?

Abstract

question raised in the title has been much debated by past and present interpreters of Zoroastrianism. In the first two parts of this paper we present some dualistic and monotheistic interpretations of the religion. interpretations can be labeled as follows: I. DUALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks Omnipotence And Omniscience (Dhalla, Henning) 2. View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks A Physical Nature (Shaked, Boyce) II. MONOTHEISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. Created Spirits View (Zaehner, Fox, Gershevitch) 2. Transformationist (Maskhiyya) View 3. Zurvinite View 4. View That Good And Evil Are Coeternal Only In A Logical Sense (Moulton, Bode and Nanavutty, Duchesne-Guillemin) We present each of these views and discuss it critically in light of the following criteria: (1) textual evidence; (2) the continuity of the religion throughout its history, including the present time; (3) philosophical cogency; and (4) religious satisfaction. Our conclusion is that each of the above positions, despite its elements of strength, falls seriously short of one or more of these criteria, and hence that there is need for a more adequate interpretation of Zoroastrianism than any of them can offer. Accordingly, we present another interpretation in order to provoke further discussion and, hopefully, to advance the cause of trying to gain a more precise grasp of the teachings of this remarkable religion. James W. Boyd and Donald A. Crosby are Professors in the Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University. Professor Boyd is the author of Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil (Brill, 1975), and has written several articles on Zoroastrianism, including one co-authored with F. M. Kotwal, The Zoroastrian paragnd Ritual, Journal of Mithraic Studies, II:1 (1977), 18-52. Professor Crosby is the author of Horace Bushnell's Theory of Language, in the Context of Other Nineteenth-Century Philosophies of Language (Mouton, 1975), and of a forthcoming book entitled, Interpretive Theories of Religion. His essay, Religion and Solitariness appeared in an earlier issue of this Journal (March, 1972). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.203 on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:15:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms