In preparation for discussing the applicability of Frachetti’s theory to the worship of YHWH and Ahura Mazda in Chapter Four, it is important to comment on the distinction made, between religious and social or “ethnic” identities in the Hebrew and Avestan texts. This distinction appears to be specifically pertinent to their categorization as “religions deemed monotheistic.” The fact that this separation appears to be evident these and other religions deemed monotheistic (like Christianity and Islam), suggests that it reflects a building block (or combination thereof) common to the category. The struggle of scholars of “Religion” to use terminology that mimics this separation when attempting to describe, for instance, “Egyptian religion” as an institution distinct from “Egyptian society (or culture)” highlights the absence of such features from religions deemed polytheistic. What is Mesopotamian religion? The religion of the Mesopotamians. What is Mazda-worship? The religion of the Aryans.

Chapter Eight examines this distinction in the context of narratives describing how “the people” got their “Religion.” This appears to be thepivotal moment in the internal histories of these (and other) religions deemed monotheistic. Within the narratives of the Avestan and Hebrew texts, the separateness of the Aryan and Israelite people, respectively, from the religions centered around Ahura Mazda and YHWH, appears to be connected to the survival and spread of these religions. De Jong writes, “It must be assumed that at a certain moment in history there were people in the Iranian world who chose to adopt this religion, who did not speak Avestan, but were convinced that it was important for their belonging to the community of Mazdaworshippers to use the Avestan texts in their prayers and rituals. This has been evoked, somewhat romantically, as a result of the work of Zoroastrian missionaries whose activities are to some extent recorded.”¹ De Jong’s comments highlight the results of this building block: the distinction allows for non-adherents of various social or ethnic identities to adopt the religion. It is also important to point out that within de Jong’s remark concerning “the work of Zoroastrian missionaries” we can see a glimmer of what Jan Assmann evaluates as “antagonistic acculturation.”² This concept concerns the interaction of religions deemed monotheistic with religions deemed polytheistic in confrontational terms. The next section considers particularly building blocks that appear to define the former category and underlie the propensity of these religions to define those in the latter category as “Other.”