Full Question:
<em>Suppose it is discovered that the first zurvanites were influenced more by indian than by babylonian conceptions of cyclical time. does this discovery support the author's argument?</em>
A: The author does not claim that Zoroaster was the first to proclaim the end of history, just that this claim was one of the “most striking elements” in his teaching (lines 27-29). This discovery would not be inconsistent with the passage.
B: The author suggests that the Zurvanite conception of time as a sentient being was based in Babylonian speculations that time is cyclical, and so unending (lines 29-35). An early Zurvanite denial that history has an end (i.e., a claim that history and time do not end) would strengthen, not weaken the author’s argument.
C: The author very strongly argues that the Zurvanites committed “a deep and grievous heresy” by claiming that the two primal beings were brothers (lines 52-56). If Zoroaster himself made this claim, the Zurvanites would not in fact have “betrayed Zoroaster’s fundamental doctrine.”
D: The author does not argue that Zoroaster had no premonitory inkling of what heresies were to come. This discovery would have no effect on the author’s position.
Answer:
Yes. The author very strongly argues that the Zurvanites committed “a deep and grievous heresy” by claiming that the two primal beings were brothers (lines 52-56). If Zoroaster himself made this claim, the Zurvanites would not in fact have “betrayed Zoroaster’s fundamental doctrine.”
Cheers!
