I see they're using an extremely loose definition of "Judaism." (I wouldn't call the ancient Israelites "Jews," a term that refers to descent from the tribe of Judah)
They have Manicheism going on too long, IMO.
The date of origin for Zoroastrianism is extremely heavily debated, but I'd push it back just a bit from where it seems to be on that chart...or on second thought, maybe that's what the lightly shaded bit means.
I can't help but notice the complete lack of Native American/Australian Aborigine/African faiths.
A Hindu might not be too happy about the chart, but it's pretty much right in that case. It's just inconsistent with their statement on Judaism. If you're going to say that Hinduism in its complete form came around in 2XX BC, why wouldn't you say that Judaism came about in its complete form around 5XX BC?
Would there be any universally fair way to construct such an image?
