Was Zoroaster the most influential human ever?

There's even more to it than that - "magi" and "zoroastrian" are synonyms, I think.

I think magi would translate to sage. They were scientists and holymen in one. Bringing up the magi would suggest what we would understand to be a scientific basis for belief that Jesus was the Messiah... the King of the Jews.

Astrology emerged in Mesopotamia and rendered benefit by allowing farmers to predict the spring equinox... the approximate last frost date. It was unknown at the time what the limits were on what they could "see" by studying the stars. We would say they "saw" the plane of our solar system. Not bad.

Well, he specifically says that Ahura Mazda is the only "uncreated" god -- so it presents no greater a challenge than in Christian conceptions of Satan and of angels. Yes, it's not entirely reconciled in Zoroastrianism, but neither is it in Christianity. Post-Upanishad Hinduism of course has found ways to theologically justify itself as a monotheistic religion, i.e. even the trimurti of Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma (let alone all the Vedic gods) can be seen as aspects of Brahman.

Certainly the Zoroastrians were persecuted as polytheists and fire worshippers, but we probably all agree that it's unfair to interpret the beliefs of an ancient people based on characterizations made by their enemies -- I somehow get the sense that appreciating differences between people held less importance in the ancient world than now.

His language from what I understand does not differ much from the language used in other parts of the Avesta that are not attributed to him, so I'm not sure you can make the case that he was affecting an ancient language. Furthermore, written prophecy was I'm sure quite unprecedented at the time and literacy / written language rare altogether. The writings of Zoroaster are very clearly attributed directly to him within the Avesta, i.e. not the writings of his disciples.

So like the post-Torah books in the Tanakh, like Ezekiel and Daniel, authorship by a single person is presumed but is incorporated into a compendium.

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 11:23 AM ----------

Interesting point -- what you're suggesting is that the gospel authors included the magi in the story to lend astrologic legitimacy to the prophecy? I mean of course the authors of the gospels thought he was King of the Jews, but it's their use of the magi story and not what the magi in real life said or thought (if they existed).

I agree - but even in Greek and Norse paganism there is a first god who gives rise (directly or indirectly) to the others.

I suspect myself that Zoroastrianism was maybe the first religion to attribute so much power and foresight (if not actual omnipotence and omniscience) to the first god, but I doubt it was a monotheism in the way that Islam is, for example.

It was "more monotheisticy" than typical pagan conceptions - I concur.

But prior to the Sassanid revisions (which were post Christian) I think it was less focussed on Ahura Mazda as God with a capital "G", more like a god, or a god of gods.

Interestingly there's a series on the seven deadly sins on TV at the moment - and a lot of the senior devils and angels of catholic doctrine are very similar to certain devas.

The book of Matthew was intended to persuade Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Every part of the story is referenced to scriptures that were understood to be prophesies regarding his coming. Claiming that three Magi honored his birth would be drawing in the command of science on top of all the fulfilled prophecies.

As for a star leading three men to a specific place.. we could imagine a moving bright light leading them from the east. More in keeping with the "science" of the magi, the star mentioned would have been seen in a horoscope (a picture of where the planets are at a specific time) The Magi would have discerned from the story encoded in the horoscope that something important was happening and where they should go to pay homage. It was common practice back then for people to respect/fear other people's gods. If I came to do business in your town, I would first find out how to pay respects to your god.

An important exception to this rule was the Israelites. "You will have no gods before me" (one of the ten commandments) is telling the Israelites not to worship other gods... this is the beginning of the idea of "false gods", not a bad god... a false god: a lie. This is an aspect of monotheism. The Iraelites strongly believed that there was something special about them that must not become contaminated by foreign ideas. In fact purity vs contamination was an essential theme in their view of the world. The Israelites were cleaner and more educated than their contemporaries. There really was something special about them.

But the Jews were never really separate from the rest of humanity. The Jews have been influencing the Gentiles for the last 2000 years... just as Gentiles have provided the backdrop to their specialness. In a way, the day the Jews are finally absorbed into the Gentile world (if that ever happens), they'll only be coming home to a culture in which their vision has long been essential.

I think an historical figure of even greater importance was Abraham. A desert nomad who spoke to God, who "starts him on a fateful journey that has still not come to an end in its effects...'I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you....I will establish my covenant...'" (p 53). And some 4,000 years after Abraham about 55% of the world's population claim to believe in Abraham and his God. (From review of 'The God that Did Not Fail', by Robert Royal)

By contrast, the direct lineage of Zoroaster (admittedly a different concept to 'faiths influenced by his ideas') are the Parsis (or Zoroastrians), of whom there a now less than 3 million.