Talk:Zurvan (disambiguation)

Request for expansion

On 8 March 2006, User:SouthernComfort added the following expansion tag to the article.

On 27 March 2006 it was moved from the main page to the talk page, since this template has been deprecated for use on main pages.

---

How do we know when this article has been expanded enough? Lawrence King 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When the article has been expanded - it's currently lacking a great deal of information. I would have expanded the article myself quite awhile ago, but I don't have access to the original sources from where my knowledge is derived. SouthernComfort 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm in the process of writing an article on Zurvanism, but... the text that deals with the historical development is pretty much the only place where the divinity Zurvan is dealt with.

Since, a) hat section is fairly long and doesn't make a lot of sense outside the context of Zurvanism, and b) Manichean Zurvan and Mithraic Zurvan need some attention too,... I suggest that when I post the article, I do so under "Zurvanism", and make "Zurvan" a disambig page along the lines of:

Zurvan is the name of the first Principle (supreme deity) in several religious movements:

• In Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism)
• In Manichaeism
• As the Persian name of the Hellenic Chronos, subsequently adopted by Mithraism.

I'd then add a few paragraphs describing each version of Zurvan and the relationship to each other.

What do y'all think? -- Fullstop 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem

• Some assert that Zurvan was part of the original teachings of Zoroastrianism
• Some assert that Zurvan was a local deity who predated the Zoroastrian religion
• Some assert that Zurvan was a later addition to Zoroastrian belief

I think there is a potential problem with the above. I think there is a pretty fair consensus amongst scholars that 1) Zurvan was a deity predating the advent of Zoroastrianism, 2) that Zurvan was not part of the actual teachings of Zarathustra, and 3) Zurvan came to be added to Zoroastrian belief much later, resulting in the "Zurvanite heresy" which deviated from orthodox belief. Whether or not Zurvan was one of the original Aryan gods like Mithra/Mitra is a different story, however, and I'm not sure if that has ever been addressed. SouthernComfort 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this something Zaehner would agree with? It's been years since I looked at his book, but my recollection is that he was much less certain about these things.

You used the term "consensus". Would you say that your summary is pretty much The scholarly opinion, or would you say it's a strong majority opinion? If it's the latter, then I think the best thing would be for this section to be rewritten to reflect this consensus, and then alternate views could be very briefly mentioned. Lawrence King 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Unless there are other scholars that agree with Blavatsky's claim that Zurvan was part of Zarathustra's original teachings, then I would say my summary reflects scholarly opinion overall. However, I would prefer going back to the sources that are available just to make sure. There aren't that many, the issue of Zurvan being rather obscure, so it shouldn't too difficult to come to a conclusion. One important factor that needs to be clarified is when the first mention of Zurvan appears - was it during the Achaemenid era, sometime before, or later? SouthernComfort 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Which came first?

Was Zurvan only introduced to Zoroastrianism through Manichaeism? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Zoroastrian divinity Zurvan Akarana predates both Mani and Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism) by three centuries or more, i.e. originates in late Achaemenid era. At that stage, Zurvan wasn't yet the high-god that Zurvanism would make him, but the active principle of Time in that "the plants grow in the manner Time has ordained according to the will of Ahura Mazda and the Amesha Spentas" (Yasht 13.56). At this stage, Zurvan was still purely Zoroastrian in that, unlike the later Zurvan of Zurvanism, had no traces of greek/babylonian influence.

With respect to the Zurvan of Zurvanism, ie the first Principle of Zurvanism, this is not the same Zurvan as the first Principle of Manichaeism. When Mani wrote his Shapurgan, the only book of his that he wrote in middle Persian (dedicated to Shapur I), he used the name 'Zurvan' as a substitute for the Aramaic name of Manicheanism's divinity of light. This is also the only instance where the name 'Zurvan' served as a placeholder. Everywhere else (except direct citation from the Shapurgan), the Manicheans used a literal translation of "Father of Greatness".

According to Zaehner, Mani's selection of the name 'Zurvan' to represent his Father of Greatness had good reasons: besides being political (Shapur was Sassanid after all), the Manicheans were "struck" by the similarity (the remoteness) between Zurvan and Father-of-Greatness. But, although both were completely remote, abstract, unloving, uncaring, unreachable first Principles, the Manichean doctrine was incompatible with the Zurvanite one (father of twins and all that).

-- Fullstop 11:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

re: edit comment "Zurvanism" is a different subject.

With reference to the edit comment of 03:13, 13 September 2006 by User:Invictan (talk | contribs)...
"Already saw that but you can't delete the whole page. "Zurvanism" is a different subject."

First, I object to "you can't delete the whole page". Not only can I (because it is the right thing to do when the "information" of the old article has been disambiguated between one new article and the one line references to others), I also invited dissenting opinion here on talk [1], to which you neither responded at the appropriate time (in the 14 days), nor did you contribute to after the fact. Also, please don't use reverts as an edit tool. It is not conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation.

Second, Zurvan of Zurvanism is indeed a different subject from the Manichean Zurvan, Sogdian Zurvan and theosophy's Zurvan, which all need to be treated separately. But then,

1. what precisely is your objection to a disambig page? There is no reason why "your" Zurvan (whatever you think it is) cannot have its own article somewhere, which would then be linked to from the disambig.
2. If you believe that "your" Zurvan is not represented on the disambig page, please identify the sentences in the text at Zurvan that are
   a) Not covered at Zurvanism, and
   b) not covered by the disambig.
   These can then be placed in another Zurvan article, which would then be linked from the disambig.

Thank you. -- Fullstop 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you could make a good case for any of the following three arrangements:

(1) Zurvan as a disambiguation page.

(2) Zurvan as a page that covers Zurvan in various contexts.

(3) If you agree that Zurvan is primarily associated with a single religion or group, then the Zurvan page could describe Zurvan in that context, and have links to other groups (e.g. Manicheaism) that have other perspectives. (This is similar to how Thor is treated.)

It sounds as if Fullstop is advocating plan 1, and Invictan is advocating plan 2. If you do choose plan 2, however, the current version of the Zurvan page won't work. Instead, you should have a relatively short page whose subheadings are "Zurvan in Zurvanism", "Zurvan in Manichaeism", etc. Each of these subheadings should begin with an indented line that indicates the main page (e.g., Main article: Zurvanism) and then a short paragraph summarizing things.

You could think of this as an expanded version of Fullstop's disambiguation page.

The reason I think it should be done this way is that there really isn't a whole lot you can say about Zurvan per se -- everything you are trying to say you are saying about Zurvan-in-Zurvanism, Zurvan-in-Manicheaism, etc. If there was a large agreement about Zurvan, then a big Zurvan page would make sense, but as it is this page will be POV if it stresses one version. (Again, this argument fails if indeed we can make an NPOV statement that Zurvan is primarily associated with one faith and his use in other faiths is minor and derivative.)

That's my two cents. - Lawrence King 01:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As you say there isn't very much that the various Zurvans have in common other than their name. Making a Zurvan page on the lines of Mitra, i.e. one section per Mitra/Mithra works only if there is adequate material on the individual entities. This is not the case for any but Zurvanism's & Manichean Zurvan. The other Zurvans would only have had a single sentence. That is why I went for the lowest common denominator and made it a psuedo-disambig:

|   Zurvan is the name of the first principle (creator deity) in several different religious systems:

|

|   * In Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism) as Zurwān Akarāna, the progenitor of Ohrmuzd and Ahriman.

|   * In Manichaeism, where Zurvan is the Middle Persian name that Mani used in his Shapurgan to signify his "Father of Greatness" (Aramaic: Abbā dəRabbūṯā), the primordial deity of light.

|   * In Sogdian Buddhism, as ʔzrwʔ (where both instances of ʔ represent some vowel) referred to the high deity Brahmā.

|   * In Theosophy, which incorporated elements of Zurvanite Zoroastrianism.

In any case, these are just presentation issues, and can be dealt with when the list is complete.

But then again, perhaps presentation is not an issue at all. Because if that were so, Invictus would have added his Zurvan-in-XYZ to the list. But he did not. Atm, we are obviously missing some subtlety that he has to share with us before we can move on. A Zurvan-in-XYZ that is in his revert but not mentioned in the "disambig" listing. But I don't see it.

-- Fullstop 06:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

First, reverts are alright and necessary when it is discovered than an entire article is being replaced by a disambiguation page. Being bold is fine, but others will sometimes disagree. Secondly, all Persian deities predate Zoroastrianism. I don't know why these discussions seems to always revolve around Zoroastrianism when this was one religion out of many during the ancient period in Iran. There is a fair amount we can write about Zurvan as has been done at Mithra and Anahita. It may not result in 20 pages, but we are not here to write essays and academic thesis. I think some people have the misunderstanding that if an article is only two or three paragraphs, then it should be deleted or removed or merged with another article. I disagree. Many, if not most entries in print encyclopedias only constitute a paragraph or two, sometimes a couple of more if one is lucky. Invictan 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please compose an article on this deity that you refer to. Even if it is only a paragraph or two. It is evidently not addressed under the current Zurvan article, which of course, should refer to all Zurvans.

If, as you suggest, "there is a fair amount [you] can write about Zurvan", especially, as you propose, about one that has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism, then please be so good as to actually write this, even if it is only a paragraph or two. I'm sure, with the expertise you appear to have, it should be ready within a day or two and will cite reliable, published, checkable sources.

-- Fullstop 10:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ps: I'm particularly eager to hear your explanation of why (in supposedly pre-Zoroastrian times) the Western Iranians (Persians you say) used an Eastern Iranian (Avestan language) common noun for Time.

Since no information on Invictan's Zurvan appears to be forthcoming, I've reverted to a version that lists all the known Zurvans. Of course, Invictan is still welcome to add his Zurvan to the list. -- Fullstop 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)