The significance of individual choice (and the freedom to choose) appears to be a key aspect of these religions deemed monotheistic that likely derives from their respective origins in mobile pastoralist social contexts. Mobility offers individuals the freedom (and responsibility) to choose to remain an active part of society through contributing to, among other things, security and food production.¹ Salzman writes, “Mobility is a political factor, for it provides the possibility of escape from an oppressor, whether an autocratic leader, an extortionate tax collector, or an exploitive property owner….The nomadism so useful in adjusting to a variant environment also served to undercut hierarchical power.”² The social mobility that sets the category of religions deemed monotheistic apart is connected to three important building blocks of religion mentioned in the last chapter: the separation of religious and “ethnic” identities, an emphatic concept of “Truth,” and the differentiation, via narratives of incompatibility, from religions deemed polytheistic. Because these features all appear to act in favor of sustaining and increasing group cohesion it is not difficult to understand the influence of mobile pastoralist societies on the development of these building blocks. 

Consider the idea of competition (for adherents) among a number of religions deemed monotheistic in the modern world. The application of economic theories to Religious Studies highlights the significance of individual choice in processes of cultural selection.³ It is difficult to extricate a model of economic-style religious competition from narratives of differentiation and “Truth” integral to religions deemed monotheistic. Models of competition and freedom of choice based on free market theories stemming from a perspective of economic liberalism are, themselves, indelibly marked by the dominance of religions deemed monotheistic in 18^thcentury Europe. This connection emphasizes the usefulness of an economic model of competition to understanding the impact of mobile pastoralist societies on the religions of YHWH and Ahura Mazda. Salzman points to the importance of individual choice to group cohesion in these societies; in the modern world this is taken for granted and the marketing and public relations industries thrive on the perceived (or cultivated) “need” of various sectors to motivate consumers and constituents. The implementation of the tools of this trade have been adapted by religious groups across the world and the application of marketing techniques to the competition for adherents is nowhere more evident than on any freeway in Los Angeles, California. Bumper stickers employ a range of tactics aimed at selling “the Message” to passing vehicles: “Try God,” “Real Men Love Jesus,” or “Honk if you love Jesus.”⁴ Tools for building consensus, cultivating loyalty, and maintaining group identity, integral to the survival of mobile pastoralist societies, can be found in the language of the Old Avestan and Hebrew texts. 

Chapter Eight explores the significance of narratives of “prophet-founders” (the literary figures of Moses and Zarathustra) to the cohesion and spread of the Mazda- and YHWH-worship. The texts appear to both express the religious sentiments of communities of worship as well as act as tools for building and maintaining these communities. At the most basic level this can be understood by the simple framing of each religion as something that came to worshippers after they already formed a society. This basic tool is powerful: the societies in which YHWH and Ahura Mazda originated, respectively, chose to worship these deities. Because this kind of worship constructed as an active choice, not a passive act, adherents of Zoroastrianism and Judaism in the modern world must continue to chooseadherence. The texts lay out many reasons for making this choice, but the fact that it is offered is a most significant aspect that directly relates to the freedom of choice available to mobile pastoralists – and that does not seem to have been available, to the same degree, to settled agriculturalists. This choice underlies the social mobility that contributed to the spread of these religions: it is a choice in favor of a particular emphatic concept of “Truth,” against other (ostensibly incompatible) religions, and does not conflict with non-religious identities. 

The option to choose to worship Ahura Mazda or YHWH does not necessarily inspire religious conversion by itself. The Hebrew and Old Avestan texts are clear about the necessity of choosing these religions: the deity is the most powerful ally. Although it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to track the historical development of narratives outlining the necessity to choose either of these religions, it is important to highlight the connection between these notions and a perception of need to sway the choice of an individual to the worship of YHWH or Ahura Mazda. A variety of cosmic “carrots and sticks” are offered throughout Zoroastrian and Jewish texts that, viewed through the lens of this chapter, appear strategically aimed at ensuring loyalty and motivating individual agents. Consider Salzman’s comments regarding the position of “tribal chief” in mobile pastoralist societies:

The ineffective tribal chief or the oppressive tribal chief, if he survived assassination, would have seen his tribe melt away, his ‘subjects’ having disappeared over the horizon—to villages, to other chiefs, to other parts of the country. He would have become an ex-chief, for one could not be a chief without followers. Nomadic tribesmen, mobile warriors, free herd owners could not be held against their will. If they felt that, on balance, their interests were not being served or that they were being abused, they would have resisted, rebelled, and departed…no one knew this better than the successful chief. He knew that he was chief by virtues of his tribesmen. He knew that their consent was the foundation of his political power. He knew that he had always to be aware of public opinion and act within its parameters…The successful chief knew that to act outside of public opinion risked undermining the consent upon which his rule was based. Finally, he knew that the truly effective chief was successful in shaping and leading public opinion.⁵

The reality for a leader of free and equal individuals, each of whom has the physical option of literally walking away from society, appears to necessitate deft and pragmatic social skills. Salzman’s description suggests that the building blocks of religion integral to the survival of the worship across time and space may have been useful in the survival of the societies in which they originated. Having been well-established enough to contribute to the survival of worship into the 21^stcentury, surely conceptualizations of these deities, the “prophet-founders” who taught their worship, and the texts deemed religious that contain the narratives of these revelations, must have aided in the cultivation of stakeholdership in the mobile pastoralist societies from which these religions arose millennia ago. 

The freedom of individuals in mobile pastoralist societies is balanced by the constant need for survival in challenging social and physical landscapes. It is important to recall that the basis for Frachetti’s Non-Uniform Complexity Theory is a model of continuous fluctuations in natural and social environmental conditions that require an ever-ready perspective of strategic responsiveness. Salzman writes, 

What is absent in segmentary tribal societies is civil peace, in which disputes and conflicts are resolved according to specified rules, without recourse to violence. In civil society—society in which security is based institution of civil peace—small official groups specialize in legal procedures and the enforcement of legal decisions. This frees most men from military activities, allowing them to devote their energies to crafts, industries, services, commerce, and professions, thus facilitating economic and artistic productivity and innovation. Thus, there is a major opportunity cost in segmentary, tribal societies, where men must devote themselves to military skills and combat at the expense of productive creativity.⁶

Salzman’s insights recall, and seem to explain, the epigraphic evidence for the religions (and peoples) of YHWH and Ahura Mazda: the earliest attestations appear in accounts of violent encounters. Israelites, Aryans, and their respective deities first (and repeatedly) appear in archaeological history through reports of battle or defeat. This is not unique to these peoples, for the monuments of Egypt and Mesopotamia are replete with depictions and descriptions of royal military victories against all variety of enemies. It is, however, significant that these descriptions appear to be the onlyevidence of the names associated with the societies and religions of Ahura Mazda and YHWH. Furthermore, the religio-historical narratives of antagonistic relations with religious and “ethnic” enemies in the Old Avestan and Hebrew texts only seem to confirm the general picture of these societies and religions found in the epigraphic sources.