Draft:Zurvan

• Comment: Content taken from Zurvanism to be trimmed down to focus on the deityImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Zurvan is a deity in Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism

Lion-headed deity from the mithraeum of Ostia Antica ( CIMRM 312)

Content from Zurvanism

In Zurvanism, Zurvan was perceived as the god of infinite time and space and was aka ("one", "alone"). Zurvan was portrayed as a transcendental and neutral god, without passion, and 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 zruvan- (𐬰𐬭𐬬𐬀𐬢, lit. 'time'), which is grammatically neuter.

Evidence of the cult

The earliest evidence of the cult of Zurvan is found in the History of Theology, attributed to Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370–300 BCE). As cited in Damascius's Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (6th century CE), Eudemus describes a sect of the Medes that considered Space/Time to be the primordial "father" of the rivals Oromasdes "of light" and Arimanius "of darkness".

The principal evidence for Zurvanite doctrine occurs in the polemical Christian tracts of Armenian and Syriac writers of the Sasanian period (224–651 CE). Indigenous sources of information from the same period are the 3rd century Kartir inscription at Ka'ba-ye Zartosht and the early 4th-century century edict of Mihr-Narse (head-priest under Yazdegerd I), the latter being the only native evidence from the Sasanian period that is frankly Zurvanite. The post-Sasanian Zoroastrian Middle Persian commentaries are primarily Mazdean and with only one exception (10th-century century 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 century) reveal a Zurvanite tendency. The latter, in which the priest Zatspram chastises his brother's un-Mazdaean ideas, is the last text in Middle Persian that provides any evidence of the cult of Zurvan. The 13th century Zoroastrian Ulema-i Islam ([Response] to Doctors of Islam), a New Persian apologetic text, is unambiguously Zurvanite and is also the last direct evidence of Zurvan as a First Principle.

There is no hint of any worship of Zurvan in any of the texts of the Avesta, even though the texts (as they exist today) are the result of a Sassanid era redaction. Robert Zaehner proposed that this is because the individual Sasanian monarchs were not always Zurvanite and that Mazdean Zoroastrianism just happened to have the upper hand during the crucial period that the canon was finally written down. In the texts composed prior to the Sasanian period, Zurvan appears twice, as both an abstract concept and as a minor divinity, but there is no evidence of a cult. In Yasna 72.10 Zurvan is invoked in the company of Space and Air (Vayu-Vata) and in Yasht 13.56, the plants grow in the manner Time has ordained according to the will of Ahura Mazda and the Amesha Spentas. Two other references to Zurvan are also present in the Vendidad, but although these are late additions to the canon, they again do not establish any evidence of a cult. Zurvan does not appear in any listing of the Yazatas.

History and development

Ascent and acceptance

The origins of the cult of Zurvan remain debated. One view considers Zurvanism to have developed out of Zoroastrianism as a reaction to the liberalization of the late Achaemenid-era form of the faith. Another view proposes that Zurvan existed as a pre-Zoroastrian divinity that was incorporated into Zoroastrianism. The third view is that Zurvanism is the product of the contact between Zoroastrianism and Babylonian–Akkadian religions (for a summary of opposing views see Boyce).

Certain however is that by the Sasanian era (226–651 CE), the divinity "Infinite Time" was well established, and – as inferred from a Manichaean text presented to Shapur I, in which the name Zurvan was adopted for Manichaeism's primordial "Father of Greatness" [citation needed] – enjoyed royal patronage. It was during the reign of Sassanid Emperor Shapur I (241–272 CE) that Zurvanism appears to have developed as a cult and it was presumably in this period that Greek and Indic concepts were introduced to Zurvanite Zoroastrianism.

It is however not known whether Sasanian-era Zurvanism and Mazdaism were separate sects, each with their own organization and priesthood, or simply two tendencies within the same body. That Mazdaism and Zurvanism competed for attention has been inferred from the works of Christian and Manichaean polemicists, but the doctrinal incompatibilities were not so extreme "that they could not be reconciled under the broad aegis of an imperial church". More likely is that the two sects served different segments of Sassanid society, with dispassionate Zurvanism primarily operating as a mystic cult and passionate Mazdaism serving the community at large.

Decline and disappearance

The Sasanian Empire at its greatest extent (c. 610 CE)

Following the fall of the Sasanian Empire in the 7th century, Zoroastrianism was gradually supplanted by Islam. The former continued to exist but in an increasingly reduced state, and by the 10th century the remaining Zoroastrians appear to have more closely followed the orthodoxy as found in the Pahlavi books (see also § The legacy of Zurvanism below).

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 Sassanids, 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. Zaehner is of the opinion 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. Reasonable as so absolute a dualism might appear from a purely intellectual point of view, it had neither the appeal of a real monotheism nor had it any mystical element with which to nourish its inner life."

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). 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 connection and interaction with Zurvanism (see § Types of Zurvanism below).

The "twin brother" doctrine

"Classical Zurvanism" is a term coined by Zaehner to denote the movement to explain the inconsistency of Zoroaster's description of the "twin spirits" as they appear in Yasna 30.3–5 of the Avesta. According to Zaehner, this "Zurvanism proper" was

genuinely Iranian and Zoroastrian in that it sought to clarify the enigma of the twin spirits that Zoroaster left unsolved.

As the priesthood sought to explain it, if the Malevolent Spirit (lit: Angra Mainyu) and the Benevolent Spirit (Spenta Mainyu, identified with Ahura Mazda) were twins, then they must have had a parent, who must have existed before them. The priesthood settled on Zurvan – the hypostasis of (Infinite) Time – as being "the only possible 'Absolute' from whom the twins could proceed" and which was the source of good in the one and the source of evil in the other.

The Zurvanite "twin brother" doctrine is also evident in Zurvanism's cosmogonical creation myth; the classic form of the creation myth does not contradict the Mazdean model of the origin and evolution of the universe, which begins where the Zurvanite model ends. It may well be that the Zurvanite cosmogony was an adaptation of an antecedent Hellenic Chronos cosmogony that portrayed Infinite Time as the "Father of Time" (not to be confused with the Titan Cronus, father of Zeus) whom the Greeks equated with Oromasdes, i.e. Ohrmuzd / Ahura Mazda.

Creation story

The classic Zurvanite model of creation, preserved only by non-Zoroastrian sources, proceeds as follows:

In the beginning, the great God Zurvan existed alone. Desiring offspring that would create "heaven and hell and everything in between", Zurvan sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, androgyne Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which He then communicated to His brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9,000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.

Christian and Manichaean missionaries considered this doctrine to be exemplary of the Zoroastrian faith and it was these and similar texts that first reached the west. Corroborated by Anquetil-Duperron's "erroneous rendering" of Vendidad 19.9, these led to the late 18th-century century conclusion that Infinite Time was the first Principle of Zoroastrianism and Ohrmuzd was therefore only "the derivative and secondary character". Ironically, the fact that no Zoroastrian texts contained any hint of the born-of-Zurvan doctrine was considered to be evidence of a latter-day corruption of the original principles. The opinion that Zoroastrianism was so severely dualistic that it was, in fact, ditheistic or even tritheistic would be widely held until the late 19th century.

Mistaken identity

In his first manuscript of his book Zurvan, Zaehner identified the leontocephalic deity of the Roman Mithraic Mysteries as a representation of Zurvan. Zaehner later acknowledged this mis-identification as a "positive mistake", due to Franz Cumont's late 19th century notion that the Roman cult was "Roman Mazdaism" transmitted to the west by Iranian priests. Mithraic scholars no longer follow this so-called 'continuity theory', but that has not stopped the fallacy (which Zaehner also attributes to Cumont) from proliferating on the Internet.

See also

• Xuastvanift
• Xroshtag and Padvaxtag

Further reading

• Taraporewala, Irach, ed. (1977). "Yasna 30". The Divine Songs of Zarathushtra. Translated by Bartholomae, Christian. New York: Ams. ISBN 0-404-12802-5.

• "The 'Ulema-i Islam]". The Persian rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and others. Translated by Dhabhar, Bamanji Nasarvanji. Bombay, IN: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute. 1932.

• Frye, Richard (1959). "Zurvanism Again". The Harvard Theological Review. 52 (2). London, UK: Cambridge University Press: 63–73. doi:10.1017/s0017816000026687. S2CID 248817966.

• Müller, F. M., ed. (1880). "Selections of Zadspram". Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 5. Translated by West, E. W. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

• "The Kartir Inscription". Henning Memorial Volume. Translated by MacKenzie, David Niel. Lund Humphries. 1970. ISBN 0-85331-255-9.

• Zaehner, R. C. (1975). Teachings of the Magi: Compendium of Zoroastrian beliefs. New York: Sheldon. ISBN 0-85969-041-5.

This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.

Categories:

• Manichaeism
• Zoroastrianism