The Date of Zoroaster
Summary
The debate over Zoroaster's date centers on conflicting arguments between scholars. Professor Hertel posits Zoroaster (6th century BCE) as a contemporary of Darius, claiming he inspired the king’s actions. However, Meillet counters that no evidence—inscriptions, Iranian traditions, or Greek accounts—supports this link, rendering their contemporaneity implausible. Meillet argues Zoroastrianism was neither official nor prominent in Achaemenid Persia, suggesting Zoroaster likely flourished earlier, given the vagueness of Greek sources about him. Linguistic evidence remains inconclusive. Meillet links the Avestan of the *Gathas* to northwest Iran (near Tehran), citing dialectal similarities, but acknowledges the proof is weak. He also contends a century suffices to explain differences between Avestan and Old Persian in Achaemenid inscriptions, though critics note ruling aristocracies typically preserve language conservatively. The *Gathas*’ archaic features, including short vowels and diphthongs lost in later Vedic, suggest antiquity but lack definitive chronology. Meillet’s theory situates Zoroaster’s activity in Bactria, where social tensions between peasants and nobles mirror the *Gathas*’ themes. However, similar conditions existed elsewhere, weakening this claim. Ultimately, the lack of continuous linguistic evidence and the *Gathas*’ ambiguous socio-historical context leave Zoroaster’s date unresolved, with arguments remaining speculative.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Hertel’s hypothesis of Zoroaster’s contemporary influence on Dareios by highlighting the absence of corroborating evidence in Achaemenid inscriptions, Persian traditions, or Greek accounts. Meillet’s alternative approach emphasizes the socio-religious context of the *Gathas*, reflecting pre-Achaemenid peasant struggles against oppressive nobles, suggesting Zoroaster’s earlier role in shaping a moral framework that later aligned with imperial reforms. While linguistic arguments for a north-west Iranian origin remain inconclusive, the study underscores the impossibility of definitively linking Zoroaster to specific regions or timelines due to fragmented evidence. Ultimately, the debate hinges on interpreting indirect clues rather than concrete data, leaving the prophet’s historical positioning unresolved but highlighting the limitations of current scholarship in reconstructing ancient Iranian religious history.