Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

212 7 Religion: Christianity and Zoroastrianism
Testimonies such as these convey the impression that already during
the third century a form of ‘state religion’ existed in the Sasanian Empire,
based on the excellent relations between the Zoroastrian priesthood and
the Sasanian rulers. 12 Apparently king and state owed their power and
legitimacy to the religion, just as vice versa, religion and ‘church’ needed the
king as their protector and guarantor. The idea, however, that from the third
century onwards a Zoroastrian ‘state church’ was firmly established in the
Sasanian Empire raises doubts; although they go back to Sasanian traditions,
the relevant surviving passages within the Arabic–Persian historiography
were obviously composed not before the late or post-Sasanian period. 13 Ph.
Gignoux summarises correctly: ‘(I)t appears then that the sacred alliance
between kingship and religion is but a literary theme which developed
mainly after the Sāsānian period and . . . under Islamic influence which
attempted, sometimes successfully, the symbiosis of these two powers.’ 14
With regard to the third century the idea of a Zoroastrian ‘state religion’
is thus as problematic as the label ‘church’ (in the sense of an organised and
hierarchically structured institution), in particular as the term originally
designated a specific historical phenomenon solely referring to Christianity.
15 Nevertheless, the hierarchical structures within the Zoroastrian community
of the Magians and within the Christian Church are comparable.
In both, tiered religious honours and titles with fixed responsibilities had
emerged. 16 This ‘system’ was characterised by a strict separation of clerics
and lay people, by a strictly regulated promotion to certain offices and
a decreasing level of democratic elements, which had been unknown to
early Christianity. The responsibilities and power of the Zoroastrian priest
Kartēr are similar to those of a bishop in the Christian Church. In the
West as well as the East there was a trend towards a concentration of power
and towards monarchical power. While handing all spiritual and administrative
responsibilities to the bishops, this development consistently and
increasingly excluded the people and the aristocratic powers of the clergy. 17
Whereas during the third century the strong link between kingship and
religion in the East represented a model to the West, during the fourth
and fifth centuries the emergence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy in the West
affected the development of a ‘religious administration’ in the East. Christianity
and Zoroastrianism therefore differed fundamentally from all other
religions, cults and philosophical schools, which lacked a corresponding
organisation. Moreover, they alone consistently rejected all other religious
12 See also Bier 1993: 172–94, esp. 181–4. 13 Wiesehöfer 1993: 362–82, esp. 367–8.
14 Gignoux 1984a: 80. 15 Wiesehöfer 1993: 362–82.
16 See Paul 1983: 107. 17 Cf. ibid. 109.