Imagining the End: Visions of

apara-zata

), with ‘the latter-born Jamaspa’ and ‘the

latter-born Maidyomangha’. Jamaspa and Maidyomangha are well-known

contemporaries of  Zarathustra,

90

 who were evidently expected to appear again

together with the Saoshyant.

In the 

Greater Bundahishn

 (GBd



.



), one of  Zarathustra’s ‘naturally

born’ sons, Isat-vastra,

91

 is said to play a role at the time of  the Final

Judgment, where one would logically expect Astvat-ereta to officiate. This

indicates that the two figures were closely linked in the minds of  some

Zoroastrians.

Thirdly, there are the repeated references to the role of  Peshotan, the son

of  Zarathustra’s patron Vishtaspa, in accounts of  the future course of  world

history (see above).

92

Millenary and Cyclical Schemes

General

The above account, however, covers only part of  the course of

world history as it is described in the Pahlavi Books. As Boyce puts it: ‘The

linear clarity of  this ancient Zoroastrian apocalyptic, making known the course

of  events from the prophet’s revelation to its fulfillment through his son, the

Saoshyant, became blurred after scholar priests in western Iran had adopted

a millennial scheme.’

93

As we saw earlier, the Pahlavi tradition divides the course of  world history,

past and future, into clear-cut periods of  



,



 and 



,



 years respectively,

mentioning either three or four periods of  



,



 years

94

 and subdividing the

last into three periods of  



,



 years. These last millennia will progress in

similar ways, and can thus be seen as repetitive cycles of  history: beginning

positively but with a recrudescence of  evil towards the end. The first of  these

ages begins when Zarathustra receives his revelation, the following two will

see the appearance of  his miraculously-born sons, Ushedar (Av. Ukhshyat-

ereta) and Ushedarmah (Av. Ukhshyat-nemah). After the last millennium,

Astvat-ereta will appear and achieve the Renovation in fifty-seven years;

---

49

Millennialism in the Zoroastrian Tradition

accounts of  his activities are thus not determined by millenarian speculations.

The names of  Ukhshyat-ereta and Ukhshyat-nemah occur in the Avesta only

once (Yt



.



), in a passage whose structure is simple enough to have allowed

interpolation at a time when priests had lost most of  their active command

of  Avestan.

Time speculations and the question of Zurvanism

As far as one can

judge, these novel elements enter the tradition in the context of  a broader

preoccupation with time, astronomy, astral fatalism and further speculations

about fate and predestination. This development has been plausibly explained

as a result of  the influence of  Babylonian culture, in which the study of

astronomy – and thus presumably notions concerning the function of  time –

played an important role.

95

Because they occur in what appears to be a novel context, Zoroastrian

millenarian ideas have widely been associated with Zurvanism, a creed or

tradition which held that Zurvan, the God of  Time, was more powerful than

either Ohrmazd or Ahriman. These were in fact regarded as his twin sons,

96

to whom Zurvan had left dominion of  the world. Definite periods of  time

(multiples of  



,



 years) are frequently mentioned in connection with such

beliefs (see below), although they also occur in other contexts.

As far as one can judge, Zarathustra’s message implies that the advent of

the Renovation depends in part on the efforts and moral choice of  each

individual believer. This must logically mean that the time of  these events

cannot be predestined (although Ohrmazd’s role as creator indicates that the

world will eventually come to obey him only). On the other hand, time-

speculations of  the kind we find in the later tradition necessarily imply that

the future course of  world history is preordained; many Pahlavi texts in fact

reflect a belief  in fate and predetermination. This and other discrepancies

97

led

 

many scholars to think of  a dichotomy between Zoroastrian ‘orthodoxy’

and Zurvanism, which was seen as a heresy based on a fully developed

doctrinal system, and which was distinct from ‘orthodoxy’ in all but ritual

expression. Millennialism was therefore held to have been ‘Zurvanite in origin

[and] later somewhat awkwardly adapted to orthodox Zoroastrianism’.

98

The notion of  a Zurvanite ‘heresy’, however, has in recent years been

challenged with what appear to be plausible arguments, leading to the con-

clusion that ‘what we have referred to as Zurvanism was never a sect or

school of  thought; but it was merely a fairly inoffensive variant of  the

Zoroastrian myth of  creation, one of  several’.

99

 If  this is right, or if  Zurvanism

was at least less radically separate from other forms of  Zoroastrianism than

was hitherto assumed, millennialism is to be regarded, not as an aberration

but as an integral part of  later Zoroastrian teaching.

---

50

Origins

On the implications of orality

Both the status of  Zurvanism and the

existence of  fairly widely diverging accounts of  the millennial scheme in the

sources can be better understood in the light of  the realities of  the tradition.

As we saw earlier, for a long time Zoroastrian teachings were transmitted

orally, first in priestly schools or traditions, and then in turn by learned

priests to those who followed them. The available evidence suggests that, in

both cases, questions and answers formed part of  religious instruction, which

means that questions reflecting current realities played a role in determining

the content of  future teaching. The absence of  written sources would have

made it difficult to delineate the precise boundaries of  orthodox teaching

when novel questions or points of  view – such as those about a preordained

time-frame for future events – arose. Furthermore, the lack of  such a res-

trictive definition of  acceptable belief  may have made it almost impossible for

many learned priests to respond to new questions simply by affirming that

Zoroastrianism had no answers to offer.

 Interaction between different theological views in oral traditions tends to

be very limited,

100

 moreover, and in the case of  Zoroastrianism it can be

demonstrated that a plurality of  acceptable views existed where grave disputes

might have arisen in a strongly literate environment. Since Zarathustra’s

original teaching that time will have an end probably formed a plausible basis

for further-reaching speculations, it seems likely that millenary schemes came

to exist side by side with ideas based on more ancient Zoroastrian teaching

without being perceived as contradicting these.

Early references to millenary ideas

The existence of  a millenarian scheme

in the Zoroastrian tradition is first attested by Plutarch’s