Analysis and Critique of Chapter Nine of Sadegh Khademi’s Deceit and Divine Religion with a Focus on Herodotus’ Historical Critiques

Abstract

Chapter Nine of Sadegh Khademi’s Deceit and Divine Religion (Sobh-e Zohoor Publications, Shiraz, 2024), titled “Sources of Ancient Religion,” examines the historical sources of ancient Iranian religion, emphasizing the diversity of textual, material, and oral sources, including Greek texts, Babylonian inscriptions, Achaemenid and Sasanian artifacts, Gathas, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, and Islamic historical texts. Khademi critiques the cultural and political biases in Greek narratives, particularly those of Herodotus, advocating for the application of “historical reason” to refine historical accounts. This article analyzes the content of Chapter Nine, evaluates Khademi’s critiques of Greek historiography with a focus on Herodotus, and situates them alongside critiques by prominent historians such as Morteza Ravandi, Hassan Pirnia, and Tom Holland. Employing an interdisciplinary approach encompassing historiography, archaeology, and cognitive sciences, this study assesses the coherence and limitations of Khademi’s methodology and explores its implications for reconstructing the religious history of ancient Iran and contemporary cultural identity.

Introduction

Chapter Nine of Sadegh Khademi’s Deceit and Divine Religion provides one of the most comprehensive surveys of the historical sources of ancient Iranian religion. Khademi catalogs a diverse array of sources, including Greek texts (Herodotus, Ctesias, Xenophon), Babylonian inscriptions, Achaemenid and Sasanian artifacts, Gathas, the Old Testament, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, Islamic texts (e.g., works by Ibn Nadim, Biruni, and Shahrastani), and introduces the concept of “historical reason”—a rational, evidence-based approach—to critique biases in Greek accounts, particularly those of Herodotus, which he deems distorted due to cultural and political rivalries with the Achaemenid Empire.

Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE), often dubbed the “Father of History,” describes Persian customs, rituals, and religion in his Histories. However, his accounts have faced criticism for cultural and political biases. Iranian historians Morteza Ravandi and Hassan Pirnia critique Herodotus for exaggeration, myth-making, and reliance on unverified oral sources (Ravandi, 1975, Vol. 1, p. 125; Pirnia, 1931, p. 54). Globally, Tom Holland, in Persian Fire (2005), highlights Herodotus’ Hellenocentric bias and narrative embellishments (Holland, 2005, p. 27).

This article analyzes Chapter Nine, situating Khademi’s critiques of Herodotus alongside those of established historians and evaluating their coherence and methodological limitations through an interdisciplinary lens. The aim is to elucidate the complexities of reconstructing ancient Iranian religious history and propose directions for future research.

Theoretical Framework: Historical Reason and Source Criticism

Khademi introduces “historical reason” as a methodological tool for evaluating historical sources: “Historical reason, as a methodological instrument, prioritizes evidence and logical analysis over subjective influences, enabling the discernment of credible historical narratives” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). This aligns with modern historiographical theories, such as R.G. Collingwood’s (1946) view of history as a process of understanding human intentions through evidence, and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s (1975) hermeneutics, which emphasizes contextual interpretation of texts.

From a cognitive science perspective, Khademi’s approach resonates with Newell and Simon’s (1972) theories of information processing, highlighting human capacity to analyze complex data patterns. However, an overemphasis on rational analysis risks overlooking cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), a limitation evident in Khademi’s critiques of Herodotus, where he may overstate Greek political and cultural motives.

Analysis of Sources of Ancient Iranian Religion in Chapter Nine

Khademi comprehensively lists the sources of ancient Iranian religion:

• Greek Texts: Works by Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon, offering valuable insights into Achaemenid rituals but marred by cultural biases.
• Babylonian Inscriptions: Cuneiform records revealing Mesopotamian influences on Iranian religion.
• Achaemenid and Sasanian Artifacts: Inscriptions, coins, and reliefs, such as those at Persepolis, affirming Ahura Mazda’s centrality in Zoroastrian theology.
• Gathas and Magian Texts: Authentic Zoroastrian texts providing foundational religious insights.
• Old Testament: References to Persian religious influences post-Babylonian exile.
• Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh: A poetic narrative preserving oral traditions from the Kayanian to Sasanian eras.
• Islamic Texts: Works by historians like Tabari and Bal’ami, drawing on the Sasanian Khwaday-Namag.
• Roman, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian Sources: Complementary accounts situating Iranian religion in a global context.

Khademi underscores the interdisciplinary value of these sources: “Religious texts, coins, monuments, artworks, and oral traditions passed down through generations constitute reliable sources for the study of religious sciences” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). This aligns with Ian Hodder’s (2012) archaeological methodology, which emphasizes integrating material culture and textual analysis.

Critique of Greek Historiography with a Focus on Herodotus

Khademi sharply critiques Greek historiography, particularly Herodotus, accusing it of “cultural engineering” and “countercultural politics” that attributed negative traits to Iranian religious adherents: “Greek cultural engineering and persistent countercultural policies ascribed the worst negative traits to Iranian religious adherents, sometimes forging cultural and political symbols as ancient artifacts” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). He cites Herodotus’ equation of Ahura Mazda with Zeus as evidence of a profound misunderstanding of Zoroastrian monotheism: “His reference to Zeus is meant to signify Ahura Mazda… the lofty meaning of Ahura Mazda is in no way equivalent to a Greek’s conception of Zeus” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine).

This critique aligns with Edward Said’s (1978) analysis of Orientalist historiography, which marginalizes non-Western cultures. Khademi also references Theodore of Mopsuestia’s (5th century CE) attribution of Greco-Roman polytheism to the Magi, deeming it deliberate distortion. From a postcolonial perspective, Talal Asad (1993) highlights the role of power dynamics in shaping historical narratives. However, Khademi’s critique may oversimplify Greek motives, as cognitive biases like in-group favoritism (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) can lead to distortion without deliberate intent.

Historians’ Critiques of Herodotus

• Morteza Ravandi: In Social History of Iran (1975), Ravandi critiques Herodotus for relying on oral sources and lacking written documentation, arguing that his accounts of Persian religion stem from rumors and folklore (Ravandi, 1975, Vol. 1, p. 125).
• Hassan Pirnia: In Ancient Iran (1931), Pirnia deems Herodotus’ historiography unreliable due to its 150-year temporal distance from the events described, suggesting bias from Greco-Persian rivalries (Pirnia, 1931, p. 54).
• Tom Holland: In Persian Fire (2005), Holland critiques Herodotus’ Hellenocentrism and literary exaggerations designed to captivate audiences, viewing the Histories as more literary than historical (Holland, 2005, p. 27).
• Thucydides: A contemporary of Herodotus, Thucydides criticized his focus on audience entertainment over historical truth, deeming his narrative approach unscientific (Thucydides, 431 BCE, Book I).

Khademi employs “historical reason” to correct Greek distortions: “By applying historical reason, scholars can distinguish between evidence-based narratives and those tainted by exaggeration, forgery, or ideological motives” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). This approach could be enhanced by digital humanities methods, such as textual authenticity analysis (Moretti, 2013).

The Shahnameh as a Historical and Cultural Source

Khademi views Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, derived from the Sasanian Khwaday-Namag, as a key source preserving oral traditions from the Kayanian to Sasanian periods: “Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, a poetic compilation of ancient history… narrates events up to the era of Kay Goshtasp, patron of Zoroaster” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). He notes the Shahnameh’s depiction of the Parthians as a martial, non-religious people resisting Rome for three centuries. This aligns with Richard Frye’s (1984) emphasis on Parthian military prowess.

From an anthropological perspective, the Shahnameh serves as a repository of cultural memory, reflecting ancient Iran’s religious and social identity (Smith, 2004). However, its reliance on oral traditions limits its historical precision, necessitating corroboration with material evidence like Achaemenid inscriptions or Sasanian coins (Skjærvø, 2006). Network analysis could trace the transmission of oral traditions, enhancing the Shahnameh’s historiographical value (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

Archaeological Contributions

Khademi highlights the role of 18th-century archaeological discoveries in reviving the study of ancient religions: “European scholars conducted extensive research in Babylon, Iran, and India, uncovering inscriptions, reliefs, and papyri that illuminated ancient civilizations’ beliefs” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). Achaemenid inscriptions, such as those at Persepolis, confirm Ahura Mazda’s central role (Boyce, 1975). Unlike Greek narratives, these material remains are free from cultural bias and provide a direct link to ancient rituals.

However, Khademi notes limitations in accessing ancient sources due to geopolitical control: “Discoveries and documents from ancient sites are controlled by a select few countries” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Eight). This aligns with Dipesh Chakrabarty’s (2000) postcolonial critique of historical resource control as a source of knowledge distortion. Digital data mining could mitigate this by tracing the flow of ancient information (Jockers, 2015).

Islamic Historiography and Indigenous Perspectives

Islamic texts, such as Ibn Nadim’s Al-Fihrist, Biruni’s Athar al-Baqiya, and Shahrastani’s Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, draw on the Sasanian Khwaday-Namag and offer indigenous perspectives on ancient Iranian religion. Khademi deems them credible due to their access to primary Iranian sources: “Islamic historians with access to primary Iranian sources provide a counterpoint to Greek narratives” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine). He clarifies the distinction between “milal” (divine religions) and “nihal” (non-divine beliefs).

Though influenced by Islamic theology, these texts gain credibility through their use of Iranian sources, aligning with Fazlur Rahman’s (1982) view of Islamic historiography as a synthesis of divine and historical narratives. Comparative analysis with Greek and ancient sources could further enhance their historiographical value.

Interdisciplinary Implications and Contemporary Relevance

Khademi’s methodology, blending historical reason, textual analysis, and interdisciplinary inquiry, has broad implications for religious historiography. His emphasis on evidence-based analysis aligns with digital humanities approaches like computational textual analysis (Moretti, 2013). Theologically, his critique of distorted narratives fosters interfaith dialogue on historical methodologies (Longenecker, 2003).

Anthropologically, Khademi’s focus on the Magi’s religion as a cultural cornerstone resonates with Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory, where groups construct historical narratives to bolster cohesion. Agent-based modeling could simulate the spread of religious ideas, enriching analysis (Epstein, 2006). Philosophically, Khademi’s call for rational inquiry and ethical historiography contributes to debates on historical responsibility (Ricoeur, 2007).

Contemporary applications include cultural policy, education, and intercultural dialogue. Reconstructing the Magi’s history can strengthen Iranian cultural identity, while critiquing historical distortions contributes to global discussions on historical justice and indigenous heritage reclamation (Yu, 2010).

Critique and Limitations

Despite its strengths, Khademi’s analysis has limitations. His critique of Greek historiography, while valid, may stereotype Greek motives, requiring more nuanced textual analysis (Kuhn, 1999). Reliance on oral traditions in the Shahnameh and the scarcity of primary Magian texts, as Khademi acknowledges, pose challenges: “The lack of credible written sources on religious history… is profound” (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Eight). This underscores the need for further archaeological exploration (Hintz, 2009).

From a cognitive science perspective, confirmation bias may influence Khademi’s interpretations, necessitating methodological reflexivity (Kahneman, 2011). His focus on historical reason could be enhanced by quantitative methods, such as historical data analysis (Turchin, 2016). Finally, geopolitical control of ancient sources limits access to primary data, requiring decolonial approaches (Smith, 2004).

Conclusion

Chapter Nine of Sadegh Khademi’s Deceit and Divine Religion offers a robust framework for studying ancient Iranian religion through diverse sources, critiquing Greek narrative distortions, and advocating historical reason. This article, through interdisciplinary analysis, elucidated the coherence and limitations of Khademi’s arguments, aligning his critiques of Herodotus with those of Ravandi, Pirnia, and Holland. In an era of competing historical narratives, Khademi’s call for rational, ethical, and evidence-based historiography provides a roadmap for uncovering truth and fostering intercultural understanding. Complementing his approach with modern scientific tools and critical perspectives, scholars can deepen insights into ancient Iranian religion and its contemporary significance.

As Ferdowsi, quoted by Khademi, states:
My heart is sated with war and evil / I seek the path to the divine.
Now let us restore knowledge and justice / And bring joy in place of sorrow and pain (Khademi, 2024, Chapter Nine).

References

• Asad, T. (1993). Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Boyce, M. (1975). A History of Zoroastrianism. Leiden: Brill.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Epstein, J. M. (2006). Agent-Based Modeling. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Frye, R. N. (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C.H. Beck.
• Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. London: Continuum.
• Hintz, W. (2009). Archaeology of Ancient Iran. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
• Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Holland, T. (2005). Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. London: Abacus.
• Jockers, M. L. (2015). Digital Data Mining in Historiography. London: Routledge.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Khademi, S. (2024). Deceit and Divine Religion. Shiraz: Sobh-e Zohoor Publications.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1999). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Longenecker, B. W. (2003). Comparative Studies of Sacred Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Moretti, F. (2013). Distant Reading. London: Verso.
• Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in human thinking. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 175–220.
• Pirnia, H. (1931). Ancient Iran. Tehran: Majlis Publications.
• Rahman, F. (1982). Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ravandi, M. (1975). Social History of Iran (Vol. 1). Tehran: Negah Publications.
• Ricoeur, P. (2007). History and Truth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Skjærvø, P. O. (2006). Avestan and Achaemenid Studies. Leiden: Brill.
• Smith, L. T. (2004). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). Social identity theory of intergroup relations. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
• Thucydides. (431 BCE). History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by R. Crawley. London: Penguin Classics.
• Turchin, P. (2016). Historical Data Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Yu, H. (2010). Historical Justice and Indigenous Heritage Reclamation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.