Although the focus of this comparative case study is aimed at the ecological origins of these religions, a comparison of their respective developmental histories and modern circumstances reveals an interesting series of parallels. With the rise of the Achaemenid empire, the developmental histories of Judaism and Zoroastrian overlap, making comparison more complicated and, likely, more significant to adherents living in the modern world. It is not insignificant, however, that these historical parallels suggest interesting similarities between the religious communities that met in Mesopotamia in the 6^thcentury BCE. Consider a few similarities between the modern religions: textual traditions, diasporic community, and unique centers of worship. Each of these points of comparison has implications for understanding the contexts in which these religions originated and each shows innovation and adaptation of the community of worship over time. It is also illuminating to point out that with the replacement of the word “distributed” or “multi-national” for “diasporic,” this list applies to many other “religions deemed monotheistic,” not as products of religious change, but as what might be considered “retained traits” in the course of cultural development. It is reasonable to expect to find “newer” religions developing with building blocks that have historically “proven” themselves fit for success. 

Chapter Eight (“People (and Texts) Deemed Religious”) explores narratives of religion-founding prophets and the literary figures of Moses and Zarathustra. The research examines the Hebrew and Old Avestan texts that can be said to belong to the earliest “canons” of Judaism and Zoroastrianism. This brief note, on the parallel development of textual traditions, refers to the respective bodies of texts associated with each of these religions. These include canonical and non-canonical texts (variously deemed across time and space) that have accumulated over the centuries through oral and written processes of development. Cogent to this discussion is the fact that these texts, to no small degree, serve as definitive markers for these modern religions. What is Judaism without the Hebrew Bible, Mishnah, or Talmud? Zoroastrianism without the Middle Persian texts or the Avestan texts they preserved and supplemented? This does not merely point to Hebrew or Old Avestan texts that can be said, in either oral or written form, to constitute the “original” narratives of YHWH- and Mazda-worship. But rather, it points to parallel histories by which a variety of texts in different languages, originating in different time periods and places, have come to not just “belong” to these religions but help to define them in the modern period. 

An obvious explanation for the inclusion of texts in different languages, from various locales, is the reality of diaspora in the histories of these religions. To be sure, the historical trajectories differ, but the point of commonality most significant to this investigation is the fact that, in the face of dissolution or destruction, the religions that would become Judaism and Zoroastrianism survived and spread. This has implications for the category of “religions deemed monotheistic” because the same cannot be said for the religions of ancient Egypt, Syro-Palestine, or Mesopotamia. It is no exaggeration to say that the modern forms of the religions of Ahura Mazda and YHWH were born in global diaspora. Although the focus of this dissertation is understanding the influence of environments on the origins of these religions, an aspect of this research is the examination of the role played by those ecological roots in the survival of these deities and religions across millennia.

Chapter Six (“Buildings Deemed Religious”) explores the apparent consensus among archaeologists regarding the relative absence, before the Achaemenid period, of temples dedicated to the worship of Ahura Mazda or YHWH. In light of Taves’ work, the conclusion drawn is simple: the religions centered around these deities did not have this building block. The fact that religions don’t all have the same building blocks is integral to Taves’ approach. Although this idea will be explored in greater depth in Chapter Six, it is cogent to the present discussion insofar as fire temples and synagogues, which are respectively associated with Zoroastrianism and Judaism in the modern period, were innovative developments that signaled shifts in the histories of these religions. It is important to note that these buildings, although deemed religious, were each in their own way a new and unique kind of center of worship. It is certainly reasonable to assume that they were inspired by temple-building cultures across the ancient Near East, but at some point in history, (whether from the adoption of temple-building activity, or at a later date, is difficult to ascertain) the buildings and their religious functions ceased to resemble ancient Near Eastern temples and developed toward becoming what we associate with the modern religions. This change is obvious and, given the span of time considered in these brief notes, seems inevitable in order to accommodate the diverse needs of a community in diaspora.¹

These three points of comparison suggest very interesting parallels in the historical development of the religions known in the 21^stcentury as Judaism and Zoroastrianism. In attempting to discuss the long and varied histories of these religions, it becomes clear that issues of continuity make the choice of precise terminology difficult. Using the names of these deities as a point of continuity, consider the sources and information available to an investigation regarding “origins:” texts deemed religious and epigraphic attestations.