A History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries

by Mircea Eliade

If the gāthās are the work of Zarathustra—and this is the nearly unanimous opinion of scholars—it is allowable to conclude that the Prophet did his utmost to abolish the archaic ideology of the cosmic cycle periodically regenerated, and proclaimed the imminen...

In short, the point of departure for Zarathustra’s preaching is the revelation of the omnipotence, holiness, and goodness of Ahura Mazdā. The Prophet receives the revelation directly from the Lord, but it does not found a monotheism. What Zarathustra proclaims, and gives as a model to his disciples, is the choice of God and the other divine Entities. By choosing Ahura Mazdā, the Mazdean chooses good over evil, the true religion over that of the daēvas. Hence every Mazdean must fight against evil. No toleration is allowed in respect to the demonic forces incarnated in the daēvas. This tension will very soon harden into dualism. The world will be divided into the good and the evil and will end by resembling a projection, on all cosmic and anthropological levels, of the opposition between the virtues and th...

The spiritual, and in a sense “philosophical,” nature of the religion of Zarathustra is striking.18 The transmutation of the most important Āryan divinities into Amesha Spentas (the Blessed Holy Ones), who make up Ahura Mazdā’s escort, and the fact that each of these Entities comprises an abstract value (Order, Power, Devotion, etc.) at the same time that it governs a cosmic element (fire, metal, earth, etc.), denote at once creative imagination and a capacity for rigorous reflection. By associating the Amesha Spentas with him, Zarathustra succeeds in defining the way in which Ahura Mazdā intervenes in the world and also makes it clear how the Lord, through his “archangels,” can help and support his worshipers. The fact that the Prophet calls his God “wise,” that he magnifies the importance of “truth,” that he continually extols “good thought,” only accentuates the newness of his message: he emphasizes the function and religious value of wisdom, that is, of science, of accurate and...

the comparison with the ṛṣis of the Upanishads becomes still more convincing when we observe the initiatory and eschatological character of Mazdean “wisdom.” Certainly, being a private religion (like Vedism and Brahmanism), Mazdaism allowed the development of an esoteric dimension, which, though not forbidden, was nevertheless not accessible to all believers. Yasna 48. 3 mentions “secret doctrines.” The initiatory and eschatological character is evident in the cult that Zarathustra proposes in place of the traditional sanguinary and frantic rites. The cult is so spiritual that even the term “sacrifice” (yasna) is equivalent, in the gāthās, to the term “thought.”19 When Ahura Mazdā approached him “as Good Thought” and asked him, “To whom would you address your worship?” Zarathustra replied, “To thy fire!”; and he added, “By making it the offering of veneration, I desire to think as much as I can of Justice!” (Yasna 43. 9).

Sacrifice is the occasion, or more precisely the “support,” of a theological meditation. And whatever interpretations were given later by the priests, it is significant that the fire altar became, and remained, the religious center of Mazdaism. As for the eschatological fire as Zarathustra conceived it, despite its retributive function, it purifies and spiritualizes the world.

According to tradition, Zarathustra was killed at the age of seventy-seven by the Turanian Brātvarxsh in a fire temple.

In the Hellenistic world Zoroaster is exalted as the paradigmatic Magus, and it is always as “Magus” that he is evoked by the philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Finally, reflections of his most beautiful myth are found in Goethe’s Faust.

Zarathustra probably played a part in this process. But the advancement of Ahura Mazdā to an exalted position is not Zarathustra’s doing. Considered Supreme God, or simply a Great God among other great gods, Ahura Mazdā was venerated in the Iranian countries before Zarathustra. He is found under that name in inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings.

For years an intense controversy has divided scholars on the subject of the Zoroastrianism of Darius and his successors. Against the Zoroastrianism of the Great Kings, the following arguments, among others, are brought forward: Zarathustra is not named in any inscription; terms and names as important as spenta, Angra Mainyu, and the Amesha Spentas (except Arta) are absent; then too, the religion of the Persians at the time of the Achaemenids, as described by Herodotus, has nothing Zoroastrian about it. In favor of the Zoroastrianism of the Achaemenids, the name of the great god Ahuramazdā, glorified in the inscriptions, is cited, together with the fact that when, under Artaxerxes I (465–425), the new calendar was introduced, featuring the names of the Zoroastrian Entities, the reform aroused no opposition.27 However this may be, if the Achaemenids were not Zoroastrians, their theology was on the same plane as that of the gāthās: it abounds in abstract expressions, comparable to those of the gāthās, and it is “laden with moral considerations.”

In addition, as Marjan Molé points out, we must not expect of a king the actions and formulas of priests; he does not perform a liturgy but accomplishes concrete acts; now this accomplishment is fraša, a term that expresses “what is good, what constitutes man’s happiness, what allows the king to exercise his faculties.”29 In the first inscription that Darius causes to be engraved at Naqš-i-Rustam, near Persepolis, Ahuramazdā is extolled as “a great god, who created this earth, who ...

The inscription dwells on the creativity of Ahuramazdā and—it might almost be said in consequence—on the religious responsibility of the sovereign. It is to maintain the creation of Ahuramazdā and to...

This privileged religious situation is justified by the myth of the founding of the Achaemenid dynasty. According to Herodotus 1. 107–17, after two dreams, which the Magi interpreted as bad omens for his throne, Astyages, king of the Medes, married his daughter to a Persian (hence a man of inferior race) named Cambyses, and when she bore a son, Cyrus, Astyages ordered that he be killed. But the child was saved and brought up by the wife of a herdsman, Mithradates.31 Cyrus grew up to adolescence among the young herdsmen, but his princely bearing betrayed him and his ...

The mythical theme of the exposed and persecuted hero is found among many peoples. For our purpose, the following motifs are important: (a) the ordeals undergone by Cyrus, beginning with his exposure, are equivalent to an initiation of the military type; (b) symbolically, the future king is—or becomes—the son of the god Mithra (Mithradates, his adoptive father’s name, means “gift of Mithra”); (c) after his victory over the king of the Medes, Cyrus founds an empire and a new dynasty; (d) this is as much as to say that he created a new world and inaugurated a new era—in other words, he accomplished a microcosmogony; (e) since the cosmogony was ritually repea...

Darius conceived and built Persepolis as a sacred capital, reserved for the celebration of the New Year festival, the Nawrōz.32 In fact, Persepolis was not a political capital, had no strategic importance, and, unlike Pasargadae, Ecbatana, Susa, and Babylon, is not mentioned in any Western or Eastern source.33 The Nawrōz, like every ritual scenario of the New Year, renewed the world by symbolic repetition of the cosmogony.

In a wide geographical zone, and from a certain historical moment, the cosmogony (and, indeed, all other forms of “creation” and “foundation”) involved the victorious combat of a god or a mythical hero with a marine monster or a dragon (cf., for example, Indra-Vṛtra, Baal-Yam, Zeus-Typhon, etc.). It has been possible to show that a similar scenario existed among the Vedic Indians and in ancient Iran,35 though in this last case the sources are late and present the myth in strongly historicized form. And in fact the fight of the hero Thraētona against the dragon Aži Dahāka, to which the Avesta refers (Yašt 9. 145; 5. 34; 19. 92 ff.), is recounted by Firdausi as the struggle of King Farîdûn (< Frêtôn < Thraētona) against a foreign usurper, the dragon Aždâhâk, who had captured and married the two sisters of the legitimate sovereign, Jamšed (< Yima Xšaêta). Farîdûn—like Thraētona—emerges victorious, kills the dragon, and delivers (and in turn marries) the two captive princesses.

What it is important to bear in mind for the moment is the fact that the Iranian king was responsible for the preservation and regeneration of the world, in other words, that on the plane proper to him he fought against the forces of evil and death and contributed to the triumph of life, fecundity, and Good. Zarathustra looked for universal regeneration by means of the Good Religion. In the last analysis, every Zoroastrian priest believed that by his sacrifices he anticipated the eschatological transfiguration. What the kings accomplished, in the beginning and annually, the priest hoped to realize annually—and the Saoshyant will effect it definitively at the time of the final Renovation.

As it spread westward, Zoroastrianism encountered other types of religion and underwent their influences. Similarly, the Mazdaism of the Achaemenids did not remain unchanged. Xerxes, son of Darius, forbade the cult of the daēvas throughout his kingdom—which brings him still closer to the religion of Zarathustra. But later, and precisely from the time of the inscriptions of Artaxerxes II (405–359), Mithra and Anāhitā appear beside Ahuramazdā. Now, as we shall see, a similar syncretism manifests itself in the late Avesta, where the same gods’ names are cited beside Ahura Mazdā and the Amesha Spentas.38

No less the subject of controversy is the problem of the Magi and their relations with Zoroastrianism. They have been regarded, for example, as an aboriginal tribe of sorcerers and necromancers, responsible for the degradation of Zoroastrianism or, on the contrary, as the true disciples of Zarathustra and his missionaries in western Iran. During the period of the Median Empire (seventh century) they seem to have been a hereditary caste of Median priests, comparable to the Levites and the Brahmans.39 Under the Achaemenids they are the preeminent representatives of the sacerdotal class. According to the information transmitted by Herodotus, they interpreted dreams (1. 107 ff.), prophesied in connection with sacrifices of white horses (7. 13), and during the sacrifices chanted a “genealogy of the gods” (1. 132), which indicates that they were the guardians of a tradition of religious poetry.40 In any case, the Magi had adopted a number of Zoroastrian rites and customs and ended by being regarded as disciples of Zarathustra; indeed, certain Greek writers considered him a Magus.

It is still Herodotus to whom we owe the most valuable pieces of information concerning the Iranians of the north, especially the Scythians. Among their deities we find the sky god (Papaios), Mithra (Helios-Apollo), “Are...

The Greek historian declares (4. 59) that the Scythians had no temples, altars, or statues. However, they annually sacrificed horses and sheep, as well as 1 percent of their prisoners of war, to “Ares”; the god was represented by an iron sword raised on an artificial mound. Sacrifices of human beings (a concubine, a number of servants) and of horses accompanied the burial of kings (4. 71 ff.). Finally, it is important to note the shamanic character of one rite: the Scythians threw hemp seeds on red-hot stones and, adds Herodotus, who had not understood that a religious act was involved, the smoke made them “so happy that they howled in joy” (4. 75). In all probability, we here have an ecstatic experience, parallels to which can be found in the Zoroastrian tradition (§ 102).

The Yasna with Seven Chapters, written in prose and making up gāthās 35–42, reflects the beginning of a comparatively complex process of adaptation and integration. To begin with, certain significant innovations are observable in vocabulary; the Amesha Spentas are mentioned for the first time as a group, and we find the term yazata (“gods”), which will become important in later Mazdaism. We distinguish a certain tendency toward resacralization of the cosmic realities. Fire is identified with the Holy Spirit, Spenta Maiyu (Yasna 36. 3); together with the sun, fire is associated with Ahura Mazdā.41 The sun is the visible form of the Lord, “the highest of the highest” (36. 6). Asha, Truth, is likewise associated with light. Then too, the preeminence of Asha in the Yasna with Seven Chapters has been noted: Asha is invoked with Ahura Mazdā, and the union of the Lord with Truth “forever” is proclaimed (40. 2; 41. 6). Asha now signifies more than Truth, Justice, Order; it is a personification whose structure is both cosmic and spiritual;42 it is called “the most propitious, beneficient, immortal, made of light” (37.4).

Vohu Manah, which inspired Zarathustra in the gāthās, is reduced to a subordinate position.

Still more surprisingly, there is mention of the “good wives” of Ahurā (the Ahurānīs), who are the Waters: “We venerate the Ahurānīs, the Waters” (Yasna 38. 3).43 And Haoma acquires an important place in the cult: “We worship the glorious Haoma of gold, we worship the shining Haoma that makes life prosper, we venerate the Haoma from which death flees” (42. 5). A number of authors have interpreted this exaltation of Haoma as a proof of syncretism, after the death of Zarathustra, between the Prophet’s message and the traditional religion. However, if it is true that Zarathustra in fact accepted the cult of Haoma, though at t...

We have seen (§ 104) in what sense Zarathustra—who himself designates himself Saoshyant and exclaims: “May we be those who will renew this existence” (Yasna 30. 9)

In Zoroastrianism the eschatological intention of the sacrifice is continually reinforced, though its cosmic value is not thereby obliterated. We can discern a process analogous to the “historicization” of the cosmic rhythms and phenomena in Yahwism (§ 57). The combat against monsters and other traditional heroic themes are interpreted as moments in the Mazdean eschatological drama, that is, the struggle against the daēvas, the waiting and preparation for universal Renewal (frašō-kereti). Since the world was symbolically re-created and time itself was renewed by the New Year rite, the eschatological Renovation was finally given a place in the same scenario. The sacrifice performed by the Zoroastrian priest anticipates the final sacrifice by which Saoshyant will effect the Renovation. Consequently the officiant identifies himself with Saoshyant and, implicitly, with Zarathustra.52

Later the two intentions of the sacrifice—eschatological and cosmogonic—are again brought together. The traditions preserved in the Pahlavi texts emphasize a series of sacrifices by which Ahura Mazdā created the cosmos, the primordial man, and Zarathustra.

The eschatological Renovation will take place during the New Year festival, and then the dead will return to life, be jud...

It should be noted that the universal renewal, just like the original creation, will be the result of a sacrifice. The Pahlavi texts describe in great detail the final sacrifice, to be performed by Saoshyant and his assistants, in which Ohrmazd and the Amesha Spentas will take part, and after which men will return to life and become immortal and the whole universe will be radica...

Zarathustra had proclaimed a “holy war” against the forces of evil, and each of the faithful, by choosing the Good Religion, was summoned to combat the daēvas, to “purge” the world of demons; in other words, he took part in the universal work of cleansing performed by Ahura Mazdā and his archangels. The redeeming function of the Good Religion was progressively strengthened by glorification of the creative power of rite. Since the ultimate goal was universal regeneration, the fundamental, cosmogonic value of sacrifice was valorized; indeed, the eschatological Renovation not only “saves” humanity but creates it anew, by effecting the resurrection ...

Funerary rites, mythologies of death, conceptions concerning the postexistence of the soul change slowly, in spite of reforms and conversions. This is as much as to say that much of the data supplied by the Avestan and Pahlavi texts are also valid for the pre-Zarathustran period. The rite documented in western Iran, specifically the burning of the body and burying the ashes in an urn, spread to other regions with Zoroastrianism. Still more archaic was a custom typical of the steppes of Central Asia: exposing the body in a place designated for the purpose, where it was eaten by vultures and dogs.55 The Iranians of the East performed ritual lamentations and inflicted blows on themselves, even going as far as suicide. But Zoroastrianism drastically forbids “tears and lamentations,” declaring them to be the invention of Angra Mainyu.56

Let us single out the characteristic features: (1) the soul meets its dāenā, that is, its own Self,60 which preexists it (“lovable though I was”) but which is at the same time the result of its religious activity on earth (“thou didst make me more lovable”); (2) the dāenā presents itself under an archetypized female form, at the same time preserving a concrete appearance; (3) we certainly have here an Indo-Iranian conception, since it is found in the Kauṣītaki-Upaniṣad 1. 3–6: the soul of him who sets out on the “road of the gods” (devayāna) is welcomed, among other divinities, by Mānāsi (the “Intelligent” [fem.]) and Cākshushī (the “Clairvoyant” [fem.]); it then crosses a lake and a stream, enters a city, and arrives before Brahman, who asks it: “Who art thou?”61

There is no reference to the Činvat Bridge in the Hādōxt Nask. However, Zarathustra speaks of it at length (§ 103). It represents an Indo-Iranian conception, known to other Indo-European peoples and documented elsewhere in the history of religions. The classic description62 tells how the dāenā arrives with its dogs and guides the soul of the just man on the Činvat Bridge, over the Hara Berezaiti, the cosmic mountain (in fact, the bridge—which is at the “center of the world”—connects earth with heaven). Received by Vohu Manah, the souls pass before Ahura Mazdā and the Amesha Spentas. The separation of the good from the wicked takes place either before the bridge or at its entrance. As for the judgment of the soul, of which the Pahlavi texts speak and where the judge is Mithra, assisted by Sraosha and Rashnu (with a pair of scales), it is unknown in the gāthās. In any case, it is superfluous in the scenario: crossing the bridge, comparable to an initiatory ordeal, in itself constitutes the judgment; for according to a widespread conception, the bridge widens under the feet of the just and becomes like a razor’s edge when the impious approach it.

Another eschatological idea is added, that of the resurrection of the body. The belief appears to be comparatively old, but it is expressly proclaimed in Yašt 19. 11 and 89 (see also 13. 129), which speaks of the “resurrection of the dead,” in connection with the arrival of the “Living One,” that is, of the Saoshyant announced by Zarathustra. So the Resurrection forms part of the final Renovation, which also implies the universal judgment. Several ideas, some of them comparatively old, now find expression in a grandiose eschatological vision: the radically and completely renewed world in fact represents a new Creation that will no longer be vitiated by the attacks of the demons; the resurrection of the dead—actually the re-creation of bodies—is equivalent to a cosmogony by virtue of the microcosmos-macrocosmos parallel, an archaic conception common to several Indo-European peoples, but which had a considerable development in India and Iran.

we saw (§ 104), the final Renovation, already prefigured in the liturgy performed by Zarathustra, is anticipated in the rituals of the New Year (Nawrōz). The tradition ends by placing close to the New Year the three decisive events of the cosmic and human drama: the Creation, the revelation of the “Religion,” and the eschatological Renovation.66 But since the year is, figuratively, the totality of cosmic time, the last ten days of each year in a way anticipate the eschatological drama. It is the fabulous interval during which souls return to earth: one Yašt (13. 49–52) invokes the Fravashis,67 who move about freely during the last ten days of the year. This belief is universally disseminated, but the Zoroastrians, like other theologians before and after them, place it in a much larger system: according to the Pahlavi tradition, Ohrmazd completed the creation of man during these last ten days of the year; consequently, the Fravashis arrive on earth at the moment of the creation of man and return at the end of time, that is, at the resurrection of bodies.68

The late texts develop the parallelism between the New Year festival and the eschatological Renovation, when the resurrection will occur. On the occasion of each New Year, gifts of new clothing are received, and, at the end of time, Ohrmazd will give glorious garments to the resuscitated.69 As we saw (§ 104), it is after the sacrifice accomplished by Saoshyant, whether or not assisted by Ahura Mazdā, that the universal Renovation and the resurrection of bodies will occur. This eschatological sacrifice in a way repeats the cosmogonic sacrifice; this is why it is similarly “creative.” The resurrection, with its corollary,...

“When Samuel grew old, he appointed his two sons as judges over Israel.” But his sons did not follow his example, and then the leaders came to him and said: “Give us a king to rule over us, like the other nations” (1 Sam. 8:1–5). Kingship, then, was a foreign institution. Some opponents of the idea did not spare their criticism, for in their eyes Yahweh was sole king of Israel. However, from the beginning the monarchy was regarded as pleasing to Yahweh. After being anointed by Samuel, Saul received the “spirit of Yahweh” (1 Sam. 10:6). For the king was the “anointed” (mâśiaḥ) of God (1 Sam. 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23, etc.); he was adopted by Yahweh, became in a sense his son: “I will be a father to him and he a son to me” (2 Sam. 7:14). But the king is not engendered by Yahweh; he is only recognized, “legitimated,” by a special declaration.1 Yahweh grants him universal domination (Psalm 72:8), and the king sits on his throne beside God (Ps. 110:1 and 5; 1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; etc.). The king is Yahweh’s representative; hence he belongs to the divine sphere. But the unique position of Yahweh makes the “divinization” of the king impossible;2 the latter is preeminently the “servant” of Yahweh (the word is applied to David sixty times).

“Slave” or “servant” of Yahweh, man must live in the fear of his God. Obedience is the perfect religious act. On the contrary, sin is disobedience, breaking the Commandments. However, consciousness of precariousness does not exclude confidence in Yahweh or the joy engendered by the divine blessing. But the relations between God and man do not go beyond this stage; the unio mystica of the soul with its creator is unthinkable for the theology of the Old Testament.

By recognizing him as the creator and absolute sovereign, man arrives at knowing at least certain predicates of God. Since the Law (torah) proclaims in detail the divine will, the essential thing is to obey the Commandments, that is, to behave in accordance with right or justice (ṣedeq). Man’s religious ideal is to be “just,” to know and respect the Law, the divine order. As the Prophet Micah reminds his hearers (6:8): “What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what Yahweh asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly, to walk humbly with your God.” Sin brings loss of the blessing (berâkhâh). But since sin is part of the human condition, and because Yahweh, despite his strictness, is merciful, punishment is never final.

A fourth friend, Elihu, “still young,” breaks in violently. He is indignant that Job could have said: “I am clean, and sinless, I am pure, free of all fault” (33:9). For, Elihu declares, “God never does wrong, does not deflect the course of right” (34:12); he does not spurn the blameless man (36:5). After Elihu’s long speech,14 Yahweh’s answer is disappointing in its impersonality. God speaks “from the heart of the tempest” (38:1), in a veritable theophany, but he ignores Job’s questions. Yahweh contents himself with reminding Job of his omnipotence, his cosmic work, the complexity of the universe, the infinite variety of the manifestations of life. After calling to witness the great cosmic structures and the laws that govern the heavens and the earth, God speaks to him of the lions and wild goats and other creatures whose life and proliferation he insures, after having fashioned them, each with its particular form and characteristic behavior. And he concludes by apostrophizing him: “Has God’s critic thought up an answer?” (40:2). Job vainly tries to take refuge in silence: “My words have been frivolous: what can I reply? I had better lay my finger on my lips” (40:4).

In a second speech, Yahweh describes to him at length the beast Behemoth and the monster Leviathan. In answer Job shows that he has understood the secret meaning of Yahweh’s lesson: the very existence of the universe is a miracle, the Creator’s mode of being defies comprehension, the purpose of his acts remains impenetrable. “I know that you are all powerful…. I am the man who obscured your designs with my empty-headed words. I have been holding forth on matters I cannot understand, on marvels beyond me and my knowledge…. I knew you only by hearsay, but now, having seen you with my own eyes, I retract all I have said, and in dust and ashes I repent” (42:1–6). In the last analysis Job recognized that he was guilty toward God. Yahweh immediately restored him to his former situation and, indeed, doubled all his possessions, and Job lived on until he was a hundred and forty years old (42:7–17).

After three millennia this febrile, enigmatic, and disquieting book continues to fascinate. The fact that God allowed himself to be tempted by Satan still troubles many naïvely religious souls. However, Job understood the lesson well: if everything depends upon God, and if God is impenetrable, it is impossible to judge his acts, hence impossible to judge his attitude toward Satan. Yahweh’s secret lesson goes beyond “the case of Job.” It is addressed to all those who are unable to understand the presence—and the triumph—of evil in the world. In short, for the believer, the Book of Job is an explanation of evil and injustice, of imperfection and terror. Since everything is willed and governed by God, whatever befalls th...

“A man who is now called a ‘prophet’ (nâbî) was formerly called a ‘seer’” (1 Sam. 9:9). And in fact the institution of the “seer” (rōeh) of the nomadic period was modified, after the conquest, under the influence of the nebîîm, whom the Israelites had found in Palestine. About 1000 B.C., Yahwistic “seers” (such as Nathan) and the nebîîm still coexisted (1 Sam. 10:5).

As Jeremiah tells it: “the word of Yahweh was addressed to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I have appointed you as a prophet to the nations’” (Jer. 1:4 ff.).

Communion with the god shattered the human condition for a time, but it did not succeed in transmuting it.

Add that the two rites—dismemberment and boiling or passing through fire—are characteristic of shamanic initiations. So we can recognize in the “crime of the Titans” an ancient initiatory scenario whose original meaning had been forgotten. For the Titans behave like Masters of Initiation, that is to say, they “kill” the novice in order to cause him to be “reborn” to a higher mode of existence (in our example, we could say that they confer divinity and immortality on the infant Dionysus).