Talk:Zoroaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rewrite?

Although this article in its current form contains much valuable information, it seems to me to be wordy and biased. I believe the size limit is 32K, and this one weighs in at around 38K. A few recent edits contained pertinent information, but the article was reverted to an earlier version, because the person who did the reversion felt that the edits had not improved the article. Additional information, clarification and removal of bias by inclusion of multiple points of view are desireable in general, and certainly by Wikipedia standards, so I would like to take a shot at rewriting this article, being careful to maintain all of the information that the original author included, minus the bias and some of the length, and including some of the information that was lost in the reversion, minus the bias and argumentative tone. This topic is of great interest to me, and I've spent considerable time researching when Zarathustra lived and the evolution of Zoroastrianism after his death.

--dave c

Is IS wordy and biased, as well as outdated. I'm having a hand at cleaning it up but it's a major piece of work to deal with. I would suggest accessing current scolarship on the subject including Mary Boyce and FEZANA. Zosodada 16:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please, oh please do. I barely managed to get through it, and I find the topic interesting enough research on my time off. Between the incomprehensible attempts at foreign languages and characters (see Greek) and the lack of conciseness, I learned less than expected from this usually top-notch resource. I agree this article should be re written. It hijack known enemies of Zarathustra like Darius the great ( Esfandiar) just because Ahura Mazda was mentioned on the Behistun inscritions. little they know that Darius who created the Oersian written form of Persian language and it was the first time used on the inscriptions so you don't expect to find Ahura Mazda name in persian before that because there was no persian wriiten before that , they used Elamite language before that for writing offical and other documents, and Darius made the Aramaic language the official language of the empire. Ahora Mazda name was found inscribed in Proto Sanscrit language ( which died 2500 BC)! the new sanscrit language people could only interpret what the old sanscrit means just like the egyptians lost memory of the heratic hieroglyphic language and used a diiferent language startinf the 20th kingdom 1000 BC.

Now Zoroaster name is never found before 600 BC. It is known that he was introduced to King Vystaspa ( key Gostasp) the father of Darius and that was the exact date of his life 550 BC.

Zoroaster was not his name and know body knows his name. So quoting from this discussion somebody said (Anyhow, since there is no evidence that anyone other than Zarathustra introduced the concept of Ahuramazda/Zarathurstrianism, I think we can safely say that "by extention" Zarathustrianism (and thus, Zarathustra) is implied whenever we encounter "Ahuramazada") this is completely false and impostering plagriasing people who died long time ago ( darius). Darius would jump in his grave if he hear these lies. He told his people on the inscriptions never to be liars like the Magus he even gave them a day in the year to kill magi randomly. not a sign for the love of the Magi. However the Magi were needed for lowly jobs in the empire such as counting cleaning dead animals to read the signs etc. and that is why they stayed on( Adam The Night awl) 71.220.89.177 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

--Terri

Greek

The word "ZajpodtTTpi/s" is presumably a scanning error from attempting to scan Greek letters as English text. Could anyone fix this with the correct spelling (in the Greek alphabet) of the Greek version of the name?

I can guess at something like

Ζοροαστερ (???)

but it's a pure guess based on phonetics: I don't know Greek at all.

Some googling turned up a few instances of Ζωροαστρη in what looks like the genitive. --Brion 11:32 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

In that case, the best guess so far is Ζωροαστρ ?

I'll put it in the article, as it is at least better than what's there at the moment....

Aha! Ζωροάστρης[1]. --Brion 13:04 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Yes! I can now also see how that might OCR as ZajpodtTTpi/s. The Anome

There are other OCR mangles in here: I guess they will have to wait for someone to go back to a paper or scanned copy of the 1911 EB and type them in. -- The Anome 17:48 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

"Zoroastres" does not seem really "corrupt Greek", rather an attempt to translate the "ushtra" (star) into Greek. Is that so? Jorge Stolfi 01:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

"He [Zoroaster] purified it [Persian religion] I from the grossly sensual elements of daëva worship, and uplifted the idea of religion to a higher and purer sphere. The motley body of Aryan folk-belief, when subjected to the unifying thought of a speculative brain, was transformed to a selfcontained theory of the universe and a logical dualistic principle."

any talk of a religion 'purifying' a prior culture does kinda seem a little odd.

Yes, it's odd and biased. "Reforming", however, might be acceptable. I'll attempt to make note of specific reforms if I'm not completely overwhelmed. Zosodada 16:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very much "NPOV?"

The whole writing style of this entry is florid and overheated, to the point that I've given up on reading it all the way through. Someone needs to replace this entry with one that's about a quarter the length and more matter-of-fact, so that it doesn't sound like a sermon by a true believer.

Zoroaster is the first mouthiest of written history

Some historians believe than in Zoroaster’s original religion, God (Ahuramezd) is the only creator and the Devil (Ahreman) is also a creation of God, who later turned against God. As proof of this some similarities between Islam (and other Abrahamic religions) and Zoroasterism can be mentioned. Among these are 101 names for God (close to 99 in Islam), 4 angles (same as Islam), 5 times prayer (same as Islam) and the description of Heaven and Hell. In fact, the word Jaheem (hell in Farsi) is used as is in the Holy Quran and some orientalists believe Islam is a mixture of Zoroasterism and Judaism, which is of course untrue and the similarities are due to all three (Islam, Judaism and Zoroasterism) coming from the same divine source.

What is a "mouthiest"?

I think he meant to say "monotheist". The claim is flawed though.--Khodadad 09:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Flawed how? Please explain.

Because information about his exact beliefs is limited and because devotion to a single god does not necessarily mean belief in the existence of only one god, expecially since his system appears to have dualist elements. Paul B 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Zarathushtra

Unlike what is suggested, the Ushtra in Zarathushtra does not mean "star". Iranian is not a Semitic language and Ishtar does not play a role in the name of Zarathushtra.

Zara- is the Old Iranian form of Modern Persian "zal" meaning 'old, aged'. Ushtra- is the genetive form of Ushtr- (syllabic r), meaning 'camel'!

Zarathushtra means "the one who owns old camels".

Even though you are right about "star" not existing in Zarathustra's name, you are making a mistake in thinking that "star" comes from semitic "ishtra-". In fact mid-Persian for "star" is "starak" and in modern persian it is "stara" (corrupted in Tehrani vernacular as "setareh").

sure. but zarat is not from "golden". You are thinking of zaray (Sanskrit hari) "golden/yellow/green". dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Behistun?

the first line of the inscription translates to

I (am) Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king in Persia, the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenide.

Ahuramazda is mentioned in the inscription, of course, but not Zoroaster. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I stand corrected. I knew it was Ahuramazda that was mentioned in the inscription, I don't know why I thought it was Zarathustra. Anyhow, since there is no evidence that anyone other than Zarathustra introduced the concept of Ahuramazda/Zarathurstrianism, I think we can safely say that "by extention" Zarathustrianism (and thus, Zarathustra) is implied whenever we encounter "Ahuramazada".

No, we cannot! Actually, in the Gathas, he is never "Ahura Mazdah", rather consistantly "Mazda Ahura". Then, the word means "Lord Wisdom" and there are many reasons to believe that is was an already existing name for one of the Indo-Iranian gods. So, there is not any reason to conclude that mentioning Ahura Mazdah should be extended to a mention of Zarathushtra as well.--Khodadad 09:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

True, but by referring to his enemies as Drauga (Druj) he is operating under a peculiarly Zarathushtrian dualism, and the language of his other inscriptions echo Gathic ideas (esp. Naqsh-i Rustam). And don't forget that Hystaspes (Ὑστάσπης) is the Greek for Vishtaspa as well. If the name Vishtaspa has some pre-Zoroastrian significance I am unaware of it, though it is certainly possible. The Behistun inscription must be compared with Darius' others as well[2]. I don't fully understand the name reversal issue. That is Ahura Mazda's translation yes, and Zarathushtra was both preceded and followed by Spitama as well. So what? But it is true, that we should never assume anything, and I don't claim to be the final word on any of this, but would enjoy any further discussions. Because it is true, not only historical speculation and the Asura/Ahura cognate, but the Zoroastrian scriptures themselves refer to pre-Zoroastrian Mazdayasnian worship, and it would appear to be a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument if not looking at other peripheral/corroborating evidence such as Herodotus (though I take him with salt), etc. But on the other hand, we must remember that Zarathushtra was, like Muhammad (pbuh) never - as a rule - the center of worship, and there would have been no reason for Darius to invoke Zarathushtra's name. And would he have needed to? When I hear "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," I don't need Jesus tagged at the end or Charlton Heston saying it to get that the language is Biblical. E.g.:

"Then truly on the (world of) Lie shall come the destruction of delight; but they who get themselves good name shall be partakers in the promised reward in the fair abode of Good Thought, of Mazda, and of Right. If, O ye mortals, ye mark those commandments which Mazda hath ordained -- of happiness and pain, the long punishment for the follower of the Druj, and blessings for the followers of the Right -- then hereafter shall it be well." -- Zarathushtra; Yasna 30:10-11

"The man who cooperates, him according to his cooperative action, him thus do I reward. Who does harm, him according to the damage thus I punish. It is not my desire that a man should do harm; nor indeed is that my desire, if he should do harm, he should not be punished." -- Darius; DNb, 8c

Just some food for thought, and a comparison I found at random, there better ones to be made I'm sure ;-) Khirad^talk 14:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the baheman cut my scientific contribution taken from from the Behistun iscriptions a memorial made king Darius son of King Hystaspes who welcomed Zarathustar to his kingdom only to have the Magi steal the throne of Persia from Cambysus the son of Cyrus few years later.

From the inscriptions it is obvious that the label (Magus) to that imposter in an insult and degrade to him, so Zarathustrianism was abhored at that early history of the persians. They defamed the name of god ( Ahora Mazda) that was known for thousands of year before Zoroaster ( zoroaster did not invent the name Ahora Mazda for the One God. it was already known even before 2500 BC scientific evidence are abound about this old age name of Ahora Mazda, so what Zoroaster did was blasphemed the name of God by adding a evil shadow god ( dualistic religion or Panthiesm) the emanations story created by him too.

If he had revealed scripture who exactly spoke to him those words ( an angel from God like the Monotheistic religions ) or God himself directly.

how come non of the prophets of the bible mention their fellow who reieve scripture like them, did they name him? or their god was false, and his god was right. Anyway here my contribution that waas cut you can find the story of Darius and the Magus Smerdis online The Histories of Herodotus. The day of the killing of the Magus is a historical fact in the persian history and calender, continued even to the last days of the sassanids, where magi ( shadow rulers of the country) used to stay in their homes. . Do you want to tell me that Magi were not the adherents of Zoroaster, then what was the names of the priests of him? Magi of course. Darius was Isfandiar the Two horned king ( Dhulqarnain in islam he was a monothiest and his last words on the Behistun inscriptions ( I hate liars) refering to the Magi.

((The first archaeological evidence appears on the Behistun Inscriptions]] a memorial built by King Darius the Great celebrating the killing the imposter on the throne The Magus Smerdis, where the first time the word Magus appears in inscriptions. Darius relates that an evil sorcerer "Zoroaster?" managed to decieve his father king Vistapa ( Gostasp in Persian king of the Aryans. Darius the Great ( known in Persian Saga as Esfandiar )instituted the persian calender after that where he assigned one day in the year (the day Darius killed the Magus imposter) called "the day of the killing of the Magus" where he gave freedom to all his wide empire subjects to kill any magi they want with no reason The Histories of Herodotuswhere

 + on the day darius killed Smerdis the Magus he ordered the people of the city to kill all the magi which they did very happily.

So please don't connect Zoroaster with Ahora Mazda since Darius who greatly obeyed Ahora Mazda and even mentioned his name more than the king name himself hisname on the inscriptions, he Darius killed the Magi abunduntly and gave his nation a day to kill Magi for no reason what ever71.220.89.177 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"founder of the oldest monotheistic religion."

The article says he's probably the founder of the oldest monotheistic religion, but in "Zoroastrianism", his religion is defined as polytheistic. They're kinda opposite, so...? --Menchi 02:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's henotheistic, like all early monotheistic religians (including Genesis). But it's not the earliest one anyway. see this [3] diff, where Zosodada changed the essentially correct statement to what is basically fantasy. I would be glad if someone fixed it. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The primitive doctrine (Paoiryōţkaeṣa) was polytheistic, and thus the later lapses back into Mithra and Anahita worship and the icon worship, before the Sassanid orthodoxy. If anything Zarathushtra was a co-founder with Abraham. And if we are to scrutinize monotheism, Christianity itself falls short. As to Zoroastrianism being polytheistic, the concept of daevas and followers of the Druj epitomizes the emphatic stress against polytheism, though it would be accurate to characterize the Amesha Spentas as henotheism, and perhaps the daeva worshipers can be interpreted the same way as the First Commandment. And let's not even talk about the Zurvanite heresy...! Khirad 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is truly polytheistic, as they believed in one God and other smaller gods.Zarathustra however preached no such thing.The Gathas are the only work atributed to him.In them, he condemns false gods and their worship.He preaches Ahura Mazda, to be the only God, and what later became known as smaller gods are in fact attributes of Ahura Mazda, and not separate entities.The Gathas where written in an old language,and that caused for misstranslations of the text.For example, mentalities where viewed as spirits, and attributes where viewed as entities.Moreover, zoroastrians would accept other religions and their gods, as long as Orzimad (a later version of Ahura Mazda) whas viewed as the supreme God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

essay cut from article

I cut the following essay from the article. Have you ever looked at the Gathas? They are very opaque. Every statement you want to make about Zoroaster's views will need some serious backing up and qualification or attribution. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

As soon as the two separate spirits (cf. Bundahish, I, 4) encounter one another, their creative activity and at the same time their permanent conflict begin. The history of this conflict is the history of the world. A great cleft runs right through the world: all creation divides itself into that which is Ahura's and that which is Ahrirnan's. Not that the two spirits carry on the struggle in person; they leave it to be fought out by their respective creations and creatures which they sent into the field. The field of battle is the present world.

In the centre of battle is man: his soul is the object of the war. Man is a creation of Ormazd. who therefore has the right to call him to account. But Ormazd created him free in his determinations and in his actions, wherefore he is accessible to the influences of the evil powers. This freedom of the will is clearly expressed in Yasna, 31, II: "Since thou, O Mazda, didst at the first create our being and our consciences in accordance with thy mind, and didst create our understanding and our life together with the body, and works and words in which man according to his own will can frame his confession, the liar and the truth-speaker alike lay hold of the word, the knowing and the ignorant each after his own heart and understanding. Armaiti searches, following thy spirit, where errors are found." Man takes part in this conflict by all his life and activity in the world. By a true confession of faith, by every good deed, word and thought, by continually keeping pure his body and his soul, he impairs the power of Satan and strengthens the might of goodness, and establishes a claim for reward upon Ormazd; by a false confession, by every evil deed, word and thought and defilement, he increases the evil and renders service to Satan.

The life of man falls into two parts — its earthly portion and that which is lived after death is past. The lot assigned to him after death is the result and consequence of his life upon earth. No religion has so clearly grasped the ideas of guilt and of merit. On the works of men here below a strict reckoning will be held in heaven (according to later representations, by Rashnu, the genius of justice, and Mithra). All the thoughts, words and deeds of each are entered in the book of life as separate items — all the evil works, etc., as debts. Wicked actions cannot be undone, but in the heavenly account can be counterbalanced by a surplus of good works. It is only in this sense that an evil deed can be atoned for by a good deed. Of a real remission of sins the old doctrine of Zoroaster knows nothing, whilst the later Zoroastrian Church admits repentance, expiation and remission. After death the soul arrives at the chinvat peretu, or accountant's bridge, over which lies the way to heaven. Here the statement of his life account is made out. If he has a balance of good works in his favour, he passes forthwith into paradise (Garo dernana) and the blessed life. If his evil works outweigh his good, he falls finally under the power of Satan, and the pains of hell are his portion for ever. Should the evil and the good be equally balanced, the soul passes into an intermediary stage of existence (the Ham~stakans of the Pahiavi books) and its final lot is not decided until the last judgment. This court of reckoning, the judicium particulare, is called 6/ia. The course of inexorable law cannot be turned aside by any sacrifice or offering, nor yet even by the free grace of God.

But man has been smitten with blindness and ignorance: he knows neither the eternal law nor the things which await him after death. He allows himself too easily to be ensnared by the craft of the evil powers who seek to ruin his future existence. He worships and serves false gods, being unable to distinguish between truth and lies. Therefore it is that Ormazd in his grace determined to open the eyes of mankind by sending a prophet to lead them by the right way, the way of salvation. According to later legend (Vd., 2, 1), Ormazd at first wished to entrust this task to Yima (Jemshid), the ideal of an Iranian king. But Yima, the secular man, felt himself unfitted for it and declined it. He contented himself therefore with establishing in his paradise (vara) a heavenly kingdom in miniature, to serve at the same time as a pattern for the heavenly kingdom that was to come. Zoroaster at last, as being a spiritual man, was found fit for the mission. He experienced within himself the inward call to seek the amelioration of mankind and their deliverance from ruin, and regarded this inner impulse, intensified as it was by long, contemplative solitude and by visions, as being the call addressed to him by God Himself. Like Muhammad after him he often speaks of his conversations with God and the archangels. He calls himself most frequently manthran ("prophet") ratu ("spiritual authority"), and scoshyant ("the coming helper" — that is to say, when men come to be judged according to their deeds).

The full contents of his dogmatic and ethical teaching we cannot gather from the Gathas. He speaks for the most part only in general references of the divine commands and of good and evil works. Among the former those most inculcated are renunciation of Satan, adoration of Ormazd, purity of soul and body, and care of the cow. We learn little otherwise regarding the practices connected with his doctrines. A ceremonial worship is hardly mentioned. He speaks more in the character of prophet than in that of lawgiver. The contents of the Gathas are essentially eschatological. Revelations concerning the last things and the future lot, whether bliss or woe, of human souls, promises for true believers, threatenings for misbelievers, his firm confidence as to the future triumph of the good — such are the themes continually dwelt on with endless variations.

It was not without special reason — so Zoroaster believed — that the calling of a prophet should have taken place precisely when it did. It was, he held, the final appeal of Ormazd to mankind at large. Like John the Baptist and the Apostles of Jesus, Zoroaster also believed that the fullness of time was near, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Throurh the whole of the Gathas runs the pious hope that the end of the present world is not far distant. He himself hopes, with his followers, to live to see the decisive turn of things, the dawn of the new and better aeon. Ormazd will summon together all his powers for a final decisive struggle and break the power of evil for ever; by his help the faithful will achieve the victory over their detested enemies, the daëva worshippers, and render them impotent. Thereupon Ormazd will hold a judicium universale, in the form of a general ordeal, a great test of all mankind by fire and molten metal, and will judge strictly according to justice, punish the wicked, and assign to the good the hoped-for reward. Satan will be cast, along with all those who have been delivered over to him to suffer the pains of hell, into the abyss, where he will henceforward lie powerless. Forthwith begins the one undivided kingdom of God in heaven and on earth. This is called, sometimes the good kingdom, sometimes simply the kingdom. Here the sun will for ever shine, and all the pious and faithful will live a happy life, which no evil power can disturb, in the eternal fellowship of Ormazd and his angels. Every believer will receive as his guerdon the inexhaustible cow and the gracious gifts of the Vohu maljã. The prophet and his princely patrons will be accorded special honour.

---

Zarathushtra's Name?

AFAIK the name Zarathushtra (Avestan Iranian) and Zartosht (Modern Persian) mean "Having Many Yellow Camels". It is a Bahuvrihi, but I don't know where the bit about "Old" came in. I don't want to change it without confirmation, but that's all I see in my resources on those languages... the Indic cognate words translate as "yellow" and "camel", too. em zilch

no, you are confusing two words, check an Avestan dictionary and see above, Talk:Zoroaster#Meaning_of_Zarathushtra. Also, if we're going to use Avestan transliteration on the name, it will be Zaraθuštra, not Zarathuštra. I opt for Zarathushtra (Avestan language Zaraθuštra). dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, that's why I asked... I didn't write Zaraθuštra because I hadn't yet located the coding for the θ character ("theta"), and then once I had, Wikipedia was down. em zilch

Basically, the word Zara- in Avestan (cognates with Persian Zal) means Old. --Khodadad 09:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The correct name for this article should Zathushtra. Why is it Zoroaster? Can anyone explain....? I have read all relevant Talk. freestylefrappe 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

See the sections below this one. [4][5] Paul B 01:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lingiut but in Kurdish, his name means: "golden Camels", it probably is a measure of his wealth.

4/4/08 - I would imagine that "Zoroaster" is used because it's the name that he is most commonly known by in this era, in this part of the world. Myrddin_Wyllt7 (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

move

ah, man! you moved the page with copy-paste! You are not supposed to do this. Also, you are kindly requested to discuss page moves beforehand, anyway. I'm moving back. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

apologies for that. i appear to have missed a discussion as well about the meaning of his name, so for now i'll shut up. User:Emilyzilch

sorry if I seemed to jump at you. A move to Zarathushtra is arguable, but I do think Zoroaster is more in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iranian/Persian

I'm aware that Iranian and Persian are complex terms with a lot of history and multiple meanings (see Talk:Persia), and I've certainly been known to use them incorrectly. That said, use of these terms in this article seems very inconsistent, and I think that someone who's really familiar with proper use of the two, both as descriptors of ethnicity/nationality and of language, might want to check over any appearances of either word and possibly standardize. --Shotput 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming and dating convention

IMHO, I think the idea presented by others to convert instances of Zoroaster to Zarathushtra, as well as a move to that article name, is a wise one. And I see that Jguk has been here before, converting any instances of BCE to BC. I suggest that BCE/CE makes much more sense given the subject matter. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 11:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any consistency about this here, but afik the general rule is that the most common English-language form of the name is to be used. Pace Nietzsche, that's still "Zoroaster". Obviously no-one would seriously propose changing Jesus to "Yehoshua" (or whatever). However, there clearly are more ambiguous cases. I see that Confucius appears under the traditional latinate form of his name, not as "Kung-fu-tzu" or any other transliteration. There is also the fact that the name of the religion is firmly established in English as "Zoroastrianism", not as "Zarathushrianism". The Britannica also uses "Zoroaster". I much prefer the name Zarathushtra, but the balance of argument seems to favour "Zoroaster". Paul B 13:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

addendum: I also see that other ancient Iranian luminaries retain the traditional Western forms of their names. Cyrus does not appear as Khorvash, nor Xerxes as Khshayārsha. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I still think we should keep things as they are. However, I agree about BCE/CE.Paul B 19:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

We are writing an English language WP for those who can read English wherever they are in the world. That alone means we should refer to Zoroaster throughout and keep the article page on Zoroaster - that is how he is known in English. We should also keep BC/AD as that is by far the most common date notation throughout the English-speaking world. Kind regards, jguk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does this mean we should refer to Zoroaster? The name is always shown as Zarathusthra. Zoroaster is GREEK. That's where it comes from! The correct nomenclature is most definitely Zarathusthra. freestylefrappe 01:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We all know it's Greek. That's not the point. "Jesus" is Greek too. It's not "correct nomenclature" for an Aramaic speaker. "Confucius" is Latin [6]. It's not "correct nomenclature" for a Chinese guy. But those are the versions we use in article titles in accordance with Wikipedia naming policy, and also with the practice of other encyclopedias. If the name were "always shown" as Zarathushtra, that's what we'd use, but it isn't. Paul B 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But that still doesnt justify the name. It's almost always seen as Zarathushtra. freestylefrappe 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. Zoroaster is still very widely used - certainly more often than the most "correct" version, Zarathushtra. It's true that if you do a google-count you do get more hits for Zarsthustra (next is Zoroaster and lowest is for Zarathushtra). But that's mainly because most hits are pages that refer to Nietzsche's book or Strauss's music. They aren't actually about the prophet. Paul B 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Most commonly-used form

There is a misconception advanced by some advocates that the use of a certain form (like Zoroaster or Zarathustra) indicates some sort of Wiki-endorsement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is merely Wikipedia policy to use the most commonly-used form of names, units of measurement, etc. Not because these are the "right" ones, but simply because that's what mose readers expect.

If there is a controversy on what the "correct" spelling or correct "dating system" is, then Wikipedia will describe this controversy, but it won't endorse any side.

I myself was unaware that Zarathustra and Zoroaster were two variants of ONE person's name. Now I know! Thanks to Wikipedia for this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why is the article so sure he existed?

There seems to be a huge range of DOB and of places of birth and a distinct lack of contempory accounts.Geni 12:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

like with Shakespeare and Homer, if he didn't exist, there must have been another prophet of the same name :) dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

why? do we then accept that achilles existed?Geni 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Mainly because someone wrote the texts at some point. The linguistic evidence places the oldest texts (the gaths) as they are currently to be at least from 1200-1400 BC, if they are copied from something else, then the original is even older. All we are saying is that this Mr X who wrote the text is referred to as "Zoroaster". Someone has to have written it, since it exists. Likewise someone wrote the texts of Homer, there is no particular reason not to call this person Homer, as everyone else has done for millenia. Likewise Shakespeare. It is not claiming there is anything special about the person, other than that he was "the guy wot wrote the text", which is essentially the only reliable info about the person. It isn't like we are saying "there is Mr Y" and then going "he wrote text Z", we are saying "we will call whoever wrote text Z as Mr Y". "Y" being "Zoroaster" simply because that is what everyone else has said his name is for millenia. The text could just as easily have been written by someone called Bob, but this Bob is then the person who wrote the text, which everyone usually refers to by the name "Zoroaster", so "Zoroaster wrote the text". He must exist, as the text does. It didn't write itself (probably). ~~~~ 23:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone accepts that Achilles existed? Where? elvenscout742 21:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, there is a distinct lack of contemporary accounts for anyone and anything prior to 1000BC (except in Egypt). ~~~~ 22:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And Mesopotamia. And Anatolia. And the Agaean. But apart from that, yes. The Iranians were at the fringe of entering history, at that time. The 1000 BC date is fine, but most evidenve points towards a later date, maybe 9th-8th century? We'll never know. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

somebody wrote the prophecies of Merlin (ok Myrddin). It is posible that someone by that name existed but hioghly doubtful. There are a number of texts in existed that while they have been credited to a single person are probably the product of a number of individuals.Geni 16:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

the point is that the prophecies of Merlin are in medieval Welsh, but they pretend to date to the 5th century. Now if there is a text saying "I, Merlin, say such and such", and we know nothing else about the author, we may be permitted to speak of a "Merlin" who wrote these texts, it was after all his nom de plume. But since Merlin at the time this text was written was already a legendary character, we prefer to say that the author attributed the texts to Merlin. Now the Gathas are in archaic Iranian, and all we know about Zarathustra post-dates these texts. So we may as well concede that the texts were written by "Zarathustra", without making a claim about whether the name was that of his clan, or the one given him by his mother, or if he just made it up as he composed the Gathas. Fact is that the author of these influential texts was afterwards known as Zarathustra. dab (ᛏ) 17:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several serious Iranian scholars who doubt that Zarathustra can be usefully treated as an historical personage, and see it more productive to view him as the mythologized embodiment of an entire ritual-poetic tradition. Among contemporary Iranianists, I can think of Harvard's P. Oktor Skjaervo off-hand, and I know I could throw in a couple of dead Germans if I went to the library. At present, this position is still a minority view in the field, but it is worth including under a "scholarly viewpoints" or suchlike section toward the end. Bacchiad 13:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

of course, most of what's in the article is obviously legendary. It could use a good cleanup, too. the sections "Zoroaster in History", "Placing Zoroaster in a Historical Context" and "Date of Zoroaster" just ramble on about the same topic, and should be merged. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer the original question on why the article is sure that he existed: because this is an encyclopaedia! Yes, I am aware of the arguments against the historical existence of a person named Zarathushtra (forwarded mainly by Jean Kellens and P.O. Skjaervo), but those are in minority and even they admit that theirs is a theory that has more relevance for matters of textual analysis of the Gathas than anything else. For the most parts, and for the sake of an encyclopaedia, we can go with the more accepted view, and more easily understandable one, that Zarathushtra did exist. Quite honestly, prior to the invention of birth-certificates, how can you prove existence of anyone at all? How do we know Julius Caesar existed? Mainly because people wrote about him and we have his "Gaulic Wars". Same here, we have 17 poems (the Gathas) which represent a coherent idea and are written in a consistent language and peotic style. We can only assume that someone composed them, and he can be called anything you like, but "Zarathushtra" is certainly a possibility.--Khodadad 08:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There are people who think that a lot of prophets like Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha and others are merely legendary figures along the line of a religious version of Robin Hood, who has also been identified with several leading nobles at the time that most legends place him (i.e. late 12th-early 13th centuries). Zoroaster appears to me to be just such a figure, in that there could have been one or more real personages who fit the description but not the legends that have grown up around them. Achilles is a mythological figure along the lines of Odin or indeed Harry Potter. But if Zoroaster actually existed, there is scope for the "prophet" to be a compound of various different figures, all of whom contributed in some way to "his" philosophy. Because of the antiquity of his existence we do not know whether he actually existed as one specific historical person, unlike with Shakespeare about whom we have many verifiable historical sources. Lstanley1979 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1000 BC?

I will admit to not being familiar with the specialist literature here, but in general texts I have never heard such an early date given for Zoroaster. I've usually heard 7th or 6th century BC. The earlier date seems odd, given that, so far as I am aware, we don't know anything about the Iranian peoples at such an early date. john k 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me add - Britannica dates him to the 7th/6th centuries BC, giving him dates of 628-551 BC, based on Zoroastrian traditions that put him "258 years before Alexander." Columbia Encyclopedia gives exactly the same dates. Obviously, this is just a traditional date, but if it is still being given by both Britannica and Encarta, I'm not sure what business we have going with this much earlier date. And I'm genuinely confused about this. What on earth justifies this massive backdating to a period when we know practically nothing at all of the people of whom Zoroaster was a part? My experience with very old texts of uncertain origin is that as time goes by scholars tend to make them more recent - the Torah is now thought to have originated in its final form only after the Babylonian Exile; the Iliad is not thought to have been fully assembled until the 6th century BC; and so forth. Why is this one (possibly non-existent) individual being dated back to such an early point? john k 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the issue based entirely on linguistic evidence? To what extent is this generally accepted? If it really is accepted, why are other encyclopedias still giving the later date? john k 03:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My World Book Encyclopedia has 1400-1000. I was surprised, I haven't looked up that teeny, tiny, little article forever. Read the Date of Zoroaster thing below I guess. If you are sceptical of the date, than prove the dating of the Vedas wrong. To be honest I'd like to know how those are dated, but to sum it up: Gathic, or Younger Avestan is apart from a few consonantal differences h/s, z/j etc. is practically identical to the Vedas. Otherwise the article below is real good and much more clear and concise than an essay written by me would be! Khirad^talk 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

JP Mallory goes into the dating of Zoroaster in his 1989 book In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth. He also comes to the conclusion, based on the linguistic evidence, that 1000 BC is a more appropriate date than the traditional date. He also identifies the early West Iranians (the society Zoroaster lived in) with the Grey Ware pottery assemblages that appear on the Iranian Plateau around 1400 BC; this is a fairly common identification.--Rob117 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, there's a little math error in the date section that I'll clear up. The current text reads (...oldest surviving portions of the Avesta date to around 1000 BCE (+/- one century). This 9th/10th century BCE date is now almost universally accepted...)

1000 BCE +/- one century is actually the 10th/11th century BCE, so I'll make this change. -Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.67.12 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed History and later development

I removed all of it because, apart from being dated and pov, it's only marginally topical, and the entry is quite long. The good parts of it could perhaps be incorporated into Zoroastrianism. Davidweman 21:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Date of Zoroaster

The date of Zoroaster is certainly before 1000 BCE. The 6th/7th century date that is often mentioned is based on some quite older material, mainly on "traditional" datings such as those accepted by the late W.B. Henning.

Current scholarship, however, now almost universally opts for the earlier date based in linguistics and comparative evidence. Encyclopaedias might still be reflecting the older scholarship probably either due to the fact that they are much slower to change and also because the Date of Zoroaster is not exactly the hottest topic around. For more info and bibliography see my article: http://www.iranologie.com/history/zarathushtra.html

Just a week ago I picked up a book written in 1967 that said matter-of-factly that Zarathushtra was walking around and converting Jews during the captivity with disciples and everything. I think "its not the hottest topic" hits it on the head. The very thing that makes it interesting to me, makes it frustrating to discuss with others, who often by no fault of their own, but because of the dearth of reliable information out there, think that he divined by staring into the fire, and other such junk. On the other side is the, erm, to coin a term, "Darwin factor," if people catch my meaning. In any case, you're preachin' to the choir! Its always refreshing and uplifting to read someone who knows what they're talking about. Khirad^talk16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Arda Wiraf or Arda Viraf?

There's mention of "Arda Wiraf" in the text. A google search pops that string up many times, but always, I think, in connection with the article. Maybe the person who posted it was German, but couldn't they have meant "Arda Viraf"?

Well whenever there is a w/v issue its usually due to the fact that its neither, but in between in Iranian and Indian languages. I looked at the manuscript picture I know of at the Farvardyn gallery and was able to make out اردا ويراف though I'm no expert. In any case, its a matter of transliteration. I have seen it a few ways though. If only I had the Pahlavi ms.! Mary Boyce has Ardā Virāz Nāmag. This sounds more Pahlavi to me, simply because 'f' is a foreign sound. In any case, I always go with 'v' over 'w', as in English it represents the sound a little better, and is usually the more standard usage. Khirad^talk 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed it to the more familiar version and created a page on the book of Arda Viraf. Paul B 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Date

Zardošt is one of the oldest monoheist religions in the world and the date is certainly much much older then 1000 BC. In the Zardošt calander we live in the year 8000, and besides I once readed that Plato the greek philosipher wrote then Zardošt goes back to 6000-7000 BC

In response to the above comment : Check out "Plato, Perhistorian" by Mary Settegast. She suggests a 6500 b.c. date for Zarathustra. She writes, "For example, Pliny (Nat Hist. xxx3-4) stated that both Aristotle and Eudoxus believed that Zarathustra lived 6,000 years before the death of Plato. Plutarch (De Isid. 369) claimed that Zarathustra would have been 'older than Plato by 6,000' years." She also digs around in the Avesta, comparing the Gathas to the Vendida, showing how the differng tone in both suggest the teachings of two different Zarathustras at two seperate times (i.e. 7th millenium b.c. and 600 b.c.) Her contention is that the name Zarathustra is a rank-signifying name given to priestly initiates. Anyhow, just a thought. Her book is worth checking out in relation to this abviously "hot" topic. - swbrannon

I am against writing the entire history of his dating difficulties, most scholors agree through Linguistic dating that he lived around 1000, to 1600 bc...I'll have to check it but it's in that Ball park both Peter Clark and mary Boyce agree on that date. Do we need really need the rest?

Why does he look whiter than Jesus?

--220.238.248.148 10:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

How white does Jesus look? The image used is a modern one popular amongst Parsees. Obviously there are no authentic images of the man. Paul B 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to note, that while Zoroastrianism gave so much to Christianity, the Parsis were infact influenced by icons of Jesus, that is why he is painted in that style - plus the fact that halo's and pastoral symbolism were already familiar perhaps? Here is the oldest surviving depiction of him. However the present versions like this use imagery and symbolism, which is seen more in other Zoroastrian 'icons' as well, like the one with Shah Lohrasp. Besides, Zarathushtra, may have very well been lighter skinned than the real Jesus. And remember that this picture and other examples such as these vary slightly - just like paintings of Jesus. I have never been sure about the copyright issues concerning these, as many are de facto icons used in Fire Temples and homes alike, yet when detailed information concerning such status is hard to come by (like everything Zian is) I err on the side of caution. Khirad^talk 14:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Views, etc

I find this very interesting and hope it to be a work in progress. I think Zarathushtra's, though albeit minor, significance in the Bahá'í Faith should be mentioned as well. Shah Pehlavi and Khatami have made positive remarks too. Oh yeah, I just found out while driving through Arizona that there's a peak in the Grand Canyon called Zoroaster Temple (in addition to all the other religiously named "temples"). I dunno, fun fact?! Khirad^talk 15:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

place of birth

I've deleted the following paragraph;

Zoroaster was born in the northwestern part of Iran, in the city of Urmehr, modern day Orumiyeh in West Azarbaijan province. There is also a tradition that his father came from Ragai, moden day Ray, near Tehran.

Over the past months we've had assertions that he was born in Balkh in Afghanistan, and in other locations. The fact is that we don't know, so surely such assertions should not be presented in this confident way. as far as I know, the east of Iran is the most likely location, but even that is speculative. Paul B 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've seen his place of birth put at many places. The Raghā/Ray one though is W.B. Henning's theory cited by R.C. Zaehner. Thus it has perhaps a little more respectability, but still, no one can say for sure where he came from. Although there is, more or less, agreement that Vishtāspa's kingdom in which he found asylum is roughly the area of Chorasmia. That does not necessarily mean he was born there though. Khirad^talk 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

For convenience's sake, wouldn't it be a good idea to link to the book's title in a more relevant place, or at least in the disambiguations, given Nietzsche's book undeniable importance? Just my two cents. Alkaine 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On that note why the Italian band's disambiguation but not Nietzsche's? I would complain about the absence of others whom I've come across using one form or another of the Prophet's name in albums, etc., but they probably don't have an article to link to anyway. The Googoosh site doesn't even have her discography! Khirad^talk 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A totally separate point: there is a citation needed. I'll here supply the substance in the hope that someone can supply Wikipedia/technical/procedural knowledge and effectuate the citation. The citation is needed in, "Nietzsche asserted[citation needed] that he chose Zoroaster as a vehicle for his ideas because the historical prophet had been the first to proclaim the opposition between “good” and “evil.”" The citation could be to the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, full text at webpage <http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/spzar10.txt>, in the Introduction, last paragraph, e.g. "Zarathustra CREATED the most portentous error, MORALITY ... ." Thank you in advance. Bo99 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh. Thats Nietzsche's sister quoting Nietzsche. I know the original for that is in Ecce Homo, but I can't find it atm. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish?

Is the Kurdish necessary? I put in the Gujarati. Although the source here puts it as જરતેાશ્ત. From the little info I've been able to find on Parsi Gujarati before, their vowels do tend to fall in odd places, but I standardized it to be safe (for the record the Hindi is ज़रतुश्त). I've also seen it transliterated from Avestan into Gujarati like here, thus: ઝરથુશ્ત્ર, but this seems to be more liturgical, if I may use that word in this context. In any case, the Kurdish, like if I were to add the Hindi, seems to be superfluous. And are we ever going to transliterate the Persian and Gujarati, or even Greek? E.g. Zartošt, Zartośt (or Jardośt technically), and Zōroástrēs respectively. Khirad^talk 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think Kurdish is not necessary. We shoud add the Avestan script. Bidabadi 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

someone seems to have added that Zoroaster was Kurdish (sigh). We can list the Gujarati as far as I am concerned, but make sure that you provide a proper transliteration along with the Unicoded Gujarati abugida. dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

History

There are no reasons to believe that Achaemenids were Zoroastrians, as the article suggests. It is certain that the founder (Cyrus) was not. Why are we including this?--Khodadad 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know Cyrus was not Zoroastrian? I don't think we have clear evidence. The article used to say that Zism probably played a role in the Achaemenid era. Someone much have recently changed it. Paul B 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Significant sculptures etc have been found dating from the achaemenid period of ahura mazda etc thus there was at least some form of zoroastrianism prevalent in the court - thus it's relevant Danlibbo 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Ahura Mazda is not proof of specifically Zoroastrian belief, since there is no reason to believe that Zoroaster invented Ahura Mazda. Paul B 08:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

good point - but it's still a fairly sizable 'probably' - while we can never prove what cyrus himself believed, it's likely that there was a significant following in iran - i was just thinking this is more of a reply to khodadad's point than yours Danlibbo 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Zarathushtras Nationality ?

Why does someone believe that Zarathushtra was an Iranian Person ?

Yes it is correct that he lived in Persia, but as all of you know was Persia a great empire at that time and he lived in the Western part of Persia, and thats where the kurds lived.

Zarathushtras religion is still practicized by some kurds, and Zarathushtra is a Male kurdish name, while Avesta is a female name.

see Iranian peoples. "Persian" and "Kurdish" are both subsets of "Iranian". This is not about his passport, but about his membership in a socio-linguistic community. Furthermore, if Zoroaster had been Kurdish, the Gathas would be written in Old Kurdish, wouldn't they? Avestan is not even in the same major subdivision of Iranian as Kurdish. If anything, Zoroaster was a Khwarezmian or a Bactrian, or if you insist, a Yaghnobi. But it would be anachronistic to call him that. Please exert a little bit of common sense before spilling your mind, even if this is only Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

YOU GUYS ARE HILARIOUS. About the only thing that is fact about Zarathushtra is that the birth place of his religion was in Bactria. On a side note, I love the use of the term 'Indo-Iranian' mostly because of the ignorance its use implies. WHAT IS BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN? - AFGHANISTAN. Who is Indo-Iranian? - Afghans. Zarathushtra obviously wasn't Afghan however, nor was he Irani, Kurd, Dutch or any thing else you people claim, for these places did not exist. So the fact that you people are hashing over his ethnicity is ludicrous. HE WAS FROM PERSIA. A broad land that includes, but not limited to, Afghanistan, Iran (yes the Kurdish regions as well), Tajikistan, etc, so stop trying to leech off of his name, and try to use his legacy to boost your peoples ego.

it's one thing to be ignorant. It's another thing to condescendingly display your ignorance like you do. Indo-Iranian is the term used by convention. If there was no Afghanistan in 1000 BC, there was no Persia either. The article is fine, don't bother. dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

that makes no sense - afghanistan was not a wholly separate region in 1000bce, persia was more distinct as encompassing large portions of afghanistan Danlibbo 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

the word indo-european means a broad spectrum of the languages from indo-iranian(Aryan) to western european, which is a big family of languages and they all have many similarities. iranian branches include western (kurdish,lori and persian) and eastern(dari, pashtoo and tajik). about zoroaster 's origin there is contraversy but as documents show the most likely probability for zoroaster is to be in western part of iran which was the homeland of ancient media(western branch of iranian or todays kurdish). furthermore there is a kurdish dialect in mountanious region of oraman(hawraman)which is very close to avesta language(there have not been found any language close to avesta more than or the same as hawrami) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.34.25 (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bahai Discussion

I love Bahais and the Bahai religion, but this article is not the place to discuss what a DIFFERENT religion thinks of the founder of this religion. It is no more appropriate than having Bahai theology on the Christianity Page and so on. It just does not belong. --64.178.145.150 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the article on Zoroastrianism, but on Zoroaster himself. Check the articles on Jesus and Muhammad, in which you will see the same multi-faith perspective. Paul B 07:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the Baha'i pages eerily clinical, and free from controversy. While I appreciate their enthusiasm. I do think that it should belong on the baha'i faith page, or else edit it down. which I may well do.--Water Stirs 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Name section

What's with the "Name" section as currently written? It defends two opposing arguments at the same time O.o I'd fix it, but this is really a topic I have no idea about. (Looking at past talks I can understand the discussion, but really, the current text needs to be written consistently at least, even if it says "it might be this or it may be that".)--LaloMartins 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone added nonsense, which was even contradicted by their own reference. Paul B 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Zoroaster

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dating of Zoroaster

"Persian mythological dates are very early indeed, reaching into what is today known as the Neolithic." Can anyone explain what the author was trying to say here, in relation to the rest of the facts written? It doesn't seem to bear any relevance to the rest of the article, as it stands.

I think, if that sentence is rephrased and put in the context, it makes sense. It should actually begin that section. It is always interesting to relate mythological and traditional dating in contrast to scientific dating. I will try to rephrase, if I find time.Shabdiz 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoroaster, Zarathustra what's the difference?

Suggest picking a name to use - the article swaps between each of the above options, seemingly on a whim - it should be cleaned up and have the one used as the title used consistently and the alternative provided as another spelling - so what should be the primary name? Danlibbo 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Avestan

Maybe change the name so the correct one appears both in the beginning and somewhere in the middle. -Slash- 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

It is very complex to tell the source of this, but read on:

Zoroaster's name comes from Avestian, the only representative language of the old Avestian is the Kirmancki(Zaza-Susa-Elam) and the Gorani (Kermanshah) Kurdish-Dialects.

Let me explain it: Zoroaster comes from: "Zere Xo Tij Ra" (His Heart Is Made Of Light) - this is also a common description for dervishes (sufism) in the Kirmancki and Gorani Kurdish regions.

Zere ... Heart Xo ... His Tij ... Light Ra ... Of

First of all there should be told, that the Kirmancki and Gorani People aren't that common "Kurdish" everybody thinks of, but they are so old in tradition and believe, that there next neighbours the Kurds assimilated them by a higher population and by wars. (see Sorani-language and origins)

Heart Of Light (Zer Tij Ra) -> Zertijra however Zoroaster was not his name known by during his life time. it is a title.

In Arabic historical records before Islam it is recotded that he was an arab from Babylonia who became known as Shuraik ie the person who adds a god to god ( worse an evil god to god) which makes Zoroastrians worse than idols worship because those pagans knew there is one god and that their idols were just symbols , never they said that god is evil.

naming

I removed this as, at the very least it needs to be completely rewritten and have a citation.
"It is very complex to tell the source of this, but read on:
Zoroaster's name comes from Avestian, the only representative language of the old Avestian is the Kirmancki(Zaza-Susa-Elam) and the Gorani (Kermanshah) Kurdish-Dialects.
Let me explain it: Zoroaster comes from: "Zere Xo Tij Ra" (His Heart Is Made Of Light) - this is also a common description for dervishes (sufism) in the Kirmancki and Gorani Kurdish regions.'
Zere ... Heart
Xo ... His
Tij ... Light
Ra ... Of
First of all there should be told, that the Kirmancki and Gorani People aren't that common "Kurdish" everybody thinks of, but they are so old in tradition and believe, that there next neighbours the Kurds assimilated them by a higher population and by wars. (see Sorani-language and origins)" --Danlibbo 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bahai prophet

I find the category "Bahai prophet" very difficult in this context. I understand that Zarathushtra is viewed as one of the Bahai prophets, but he was not a Bahai prophet as such. I will remove that tag for now. Please discuss it here. Shabdiz | Talk 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Old testemant figures were "Christian Prophets" of such, but they're still in that category. I don't think you understand the context. It means people recognized as Prophets in the Baha'i Faith. Zazaban 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the context. An encyclopedia is about academic information not faith views. Moslems regard Jesus as a prophet too and regard Bahais as heretics. Should we include that too? The category of Bahai prophet is in academic context wrong. Please do not add that category here, unless it contains academic information. Shabdiz | Talk 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So I should remove Isiah from the Christian Prophets category? Zazaban 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to make any generalisation. Please consider the following case: If someone not otherwise informed about Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism reads this article, she or he will be mislead to believe that Zoroaster was a Bahai prophet. But in reality Zoroaster didn't have anything to do with the Bahai religion. He is the founder of Zoroastrianism. It is correct to say that Bahais consider Zoroaster as one of their prophets. And I encourage you to add a section on this. But simply adding a category which enforces a faith view without any further information, is not good academic practice. Please let me know what you think! Shabdiz | Talk 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The role of Zoroaster in Bahai is explained in the relevant section. I see no reason why it should be removed. Paul B 11:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the category, IMHO, promotes POV and not academic information. The category does not make clear the difference between facts and opinions. In my opinion it is important to make that difference. Shabdiz | Talk 11:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why the Category needss to be fixed. It is a established fact that Baha'is regard Zoroaster as a Prophet, it is not just an opinion. Zazaban 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My usage of the word "opinion" goes back to the Wiki guide for neutral POV. In that context the category is an opinion, as I have explained above. The guideline suggests that one uses statements such as: "Baha'is regard Zoroaster as a prophet". This makes a fact out of an opinion. And this is how you have correctly phrased it above. The category, as it is now, is promoting POV and not an academic fact. Also imagine how offended Zoroastrians could be, if they see their prophet "mis-represented", either as a Baha'i prophet or as a manifestation of god. Shabdiz | Talk 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of ridiculous, and completly missing the point. Lots of people are in categories for Prophets of more than one religion and nobody's been offended. Zazaban 04:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is so ridiculous? The distinction between opinion and fact, as I have used it, is a Wiki distinction. And again, I do not think we should generalise here. What other people feel is not my business. Fact is Zoroastrians do not regard their prophet and founder as a Baha'i prophet and it is wrong academically too. Shabdiz | Talk 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not prophet is the correct term is a side issue. The Manifestation of God [page actually says that the term "refers to what are commonly called prophets". The issue is whether or not Zoroaster has this role, however we label it, in Baha'i. There is no difference between this and the listing of Biblical characters as prophets in several distinct religions. As another example we have a category, "Priory of Sion hoax" in which the supposed grand masters of the POS are listed, even though almost every historian thinks this is completely made up. Paul B 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Baha'is don't view Zoroaster as a prophet, but a Manifestation of God (which has a different station) and thus the categorization is just wrong. -- Jeff3000 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another thought at another level suggesting the category could be wrong. Shabdiz | Talk 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree the categorization is wrong, I saw that the momment I laid eyes on it. This is why Categories can be moved. Though "Prophet" with a capital "P" is actually used too. Zazaban 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The latest edits

I have reverted the latest edits by 71.109.67.90. They were misplaced in the article and were not very well written. The point was also unclear. All in all they were closer to original research than anything else. Please have a look here at Wikipedia:No_original_research. Please clarify your point and post again if necessary. Thanks. Shabdiz | Talk 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They were nonsense, but not original research. They represented Helena Blavatsky's view of Zoroaster. Paul B 11:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was careful not to call it "nonsense" :), and thanks for the Helena link. Shabdiz | Talk 12:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoroaster in the west... Freemasonry

The article states:

• Zoroaster was known as a sage, magician, and miracle-worker in post-Classical Western culture. Though almost nothing was known of his ideas until the late 18th century, by that time his name was already associated with lost ancient wisdom and had been appropriated by Freemasons and other groups who claimed access to such knowledge. Zoroaster appears as “Sarastro” in Mozart's opera Die Zauberflöte, which has been noted for its Masonic elements, where he represents moral order in opposition to the "Queen of the Night."

I have an issue with the idea that Zoroaster's name is associated with Freemasonry... it isn't. Yes, Mozart's opera is noted for containing masonic elements, but he hides these elements in his own pseudo-Masonic creation. Zoroaster himself does not play any part in Masonic rituals or philosophy. Furthermore Freemasonry does not "claim access" to lost ancient wisdom or any such knowledge. This is clearly the POV of the editor who added this line and as such constitutes original research. I have added a citation request, and will remove the relevant text should one not be forthcoming in a reasonable time. Blueboar 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Text removed. Blueboar 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lede

I nixed the old lede in favour for a shorter on-topic one for the following reasons:

• the founder of Zoroastrian religion.

Actually, Zoroaster didn't found Zoroastrianism. He preached a philosophy that became the foundation of a religion named after him. The word "Zoroastrianism" is an 18th century neologism, and even "Zartoshti" (which means follower of Zoroaster, and is not the name of a religion) is not attested before the 4th century.

• Zoroastrianism is ...

That appears to be a remnant from the days before a Zoroastrianism article existed. This article is on Zoroaster, the man, the mortal, the preacher, the poet-priest. It is quite sufficient to provide a link to the Zoroastrianism article. As also the articles on Buddha, Jesus, Mani, Mohammed, Baha'u'llah ... etc, etc.

• the period in which he lived remains unclear.

fine by itself, but unfortunately bound to cause a resurgence of the rambling about "scholarly estimates, ... while others place him...." wishy-washiness. Consensus is X, end of story. The date is also dealt with in detail in a section all to itself, which cannot be allowed to be conflicted with in the lede.

-- Fullstop 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede got reverted back; I liked the new one better, but it definitely needs to include reference to his region/ethnicity... Studerby 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! I just realized that the reference to region/ethnicity fell under the table between working revisions. What I posted should have read "was a pre-historical Iranian prophet and religious poet".

The "Iranian" adjective got lost, perhaps because I had initially considered keeping a semblance of the date/place sentence, which would have read "Zoroaster is generally accepted to be an authentic historical figure who lived around 1000 BCE in the region of what is today Eastern Iran and Central Asia. (see date and place below)"

-- Fullstop 10:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ps: If Pejman47 still can't provide a lucid rationale for his (her?) revert by tomorrow (or whenever his next edits are made), I'm going to undo it. In the last 5 days I have reminded him thrice (4 times as of a few hours ago) to provide reason(s) for reverting. Needless to say, no luck so far. *sigh*

Fullstop, it looks like you're trying to remove Zoroaster's Iranian background from the lead. Zoroaster is most notable as Iranian prophet whose religion was the official religion of the first three Persian empires. This lead corresponds with all the major encyclopedia and dictionary entries on Zoroaster. AlexanderPar 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you overlooked something by not using in the appropriate talk section (I have moved your comment to this section). Assuming you will have since caught up with the prerequisite reading, I'll address your comment. It would have been nice (and in line with wikipedia guidelines) if you had provided an ordered list of your objections on talk, but I'll do my best to address your one-liners anyway. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted something.

*you're trying to remove Zoroaster's Iranian background from the lead

What I'm trying to do is stay on topic, in line with WP:LEDE and without the WP:OR cruft that you (apparently) insist is relevant.

* "Zoroaster is most notable as Iranian prophet ..."

Actually, Zoroaster is most noted for his philosophy and his contributions to religious thought.

* "... whose religion ..."

I already addressed this in the first comment in this talk section. "Zoroaster [...] whose religion ..." is bull. Zoroaster wasn't a Zoroastrian, just as Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, Christ was not a Christian and Aristotle was not an Aristotlean. Further, you're presuming that Zoroaster actually founded a religion - he did not (see parallel examples). His teachings serve as the basis of Zoroastrianism, a religion that is named after him. There is a word used in academia to distinguish Zoroaster's philosophy (from later accretions), and it isn't "Zoroastrianism."

* "... was the official religion of the first three Persian empires ..."

Thats completely and utterly unhistoric.

a) There were only two Persian empires in total, the Achaemenid and the Sassanid. The third "Persian" (sic) empire you are referring to, i.e. that of the Arsacids, was actually a Parthian empire. Not that those are the "first three" Iranian empires either (they are respectively the second, fourth and fifth), but all this precision (or the lack of it) is in any case completely irrelevant to an article on Zoroaster, who does not even appear to have been aware of any of them.

b) The "citations" provided to support the idea that Zoroastrianism was the "official religion" of the Achaemenid and Arsacid empires are false. "False" because the person(s) who inserted those citations "creatively" reinterpreted the source. That is another kind of OR. And "False" because this article is not about Zoroastrianism, and the inclusion of sources that do not even use the word "Zoroaster" are inappropriate.

c) Even if Zoroastrianism had been the religion of three Iranian dynasties (it certainly was not the "official religion" of the Achaemenid and Arsacid empires, and besides, the status of Zoroastrianism under either is not at all attested), such a statement is entirely irrelevant in an article on a person who lived several centuries before even the most creative interpretation of historiographic evidence suggests that some sort of "Zoroastrianism" existed at that time.

*"This lead corresponds with all the major encyclopedia and dictionary entries on Zoroaster."

Not if you insist on reinserting cruft. And besides, the implied "this is true!!!" does not further the point you hope to make unless you back it up with quotation(s). Complete and in context please. (i.e. no interpretation).

-- Fullstop 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"just as Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, Christ was not a Christian and Aristotle was not an Aristotlean."

Oh my god, of course they were. Fact that the ways of thinking are named after them makes them what they are: buddhists, christians and aristotleans. Mallerd (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the article does not touch on how Zoroaster is perceived in Zoroastrianism? -- Fullstop 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just you, not knowing why.--Pejman47 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"not knowing why" what? I'm sorry, but the meaning of that incomplete subclause eludes me. Please complete it.

If you are implying that the article does indeed touch on how Zoroaster is perceived in Zoroastrianism, then perhaps you'd be so kind as to also point out where in the article that subject is covered? Assuming of course that you do know how he is perceived. -- Fullstop 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

and "to simplify" doesn't justify removing the fact that he's most notable as an Iranian prophet which should be mentioned in the lead.--Pejman47 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

what is this in reference to? If its the lead (as inferred from your use of that word), then perhaps the section right above this one is where you intended to make your statement. -- Fullstop 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What you did is just a unilateral POV pushing, for ignoring some facts, but you have deleted from the lead is throughly unacceptable to me, please do not repeat it. --Pejman47 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you referring to??? Please be precise for heavens sake! What' "from the lead is thoroughly unacceptable"?? What is "unilateral POV pushing"??? (btw, the word you're groping for is "bias"). What should I "not repeat" (and why not)??? HELLO??? Would you please discuss things in the appropriate section??? If you're talking about the lede, the appropriate talk section is right above this one. -- Fullstop 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

dear Fullstop, my concern is about the lead. You intentionally or unintentionally have removed any notice from the lead that he was an Iranian and downplayed his legacy on Iran. would you please discuss your reasons for it?--Pejman47 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

first, if your "concern is about the lead" (lede), then I suggest you write in the appropriate section, which - as noted several times already - is right above this one, is right above this one, is right above this one, is right above this one, is right above this one. You may find that your question(s) have already been answered there.

second, there is another issue still pending, which is your failure to provide a reason for reverting the lede rather than improving on it. "Concerns" are absolutely not a reason to revert and do not justify them later either. "Concerns" are spoken/written - they are not expressed with a sledgehammer.

-- Fullstop 10:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

oh, and in case you have read this far... the appropriate talk section for the lede (lead) is right above this one. You could also use that section to finally justify why you reverted instead of improving the article.

Philosophy section

First of all, sorry...first time editing something on wikipedia. Just wanted you guys to know that the universe as a universal struggle, is not Zarathustra's original teaching.This came about the Sassanian period, because they translated "maynu" as spirit, when it means mentality.Zarathustra describes the universe as good, and Ahura Mazda is the only God, without an opponent.Evil is only a mentality, it is in our minds,spenta maynu and angra maynu are both our good and bad mentalities, and Zarathustra's teaching is that we must try to aqquire a good mentality.So, no cosmic dualism, only a human struggle, part of free will.The philosophy described here is about zoroastrianism, but not the original teachings of Zarathustra.So if this can be edited, please do so. If you have trouble believing this, any restoration site will explain it to you.for example [7] Thanks for your patience... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPer (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the Zoroaster article doesn't even allude to the mainyus, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. But since you have some other (common) misconceptions about what constitutes Gathic philosophy, and maybe others have too, I'll address your remarks anyway.

First, - and please don't get me wrong - the ideas you have expressed are not actually Gathic; They are the result of a very specific interpretation that - though by itself ok - cannot be said to reflect "original teachings" any better than anything previously said on the subject. Like *all* other Gathic readings also, these ideas are based on interpretations of very enigmatic poetry that rarely has any grammatical structure and that has religious vocabulary for which sometimes no precise English language equivalent exists. So, its only very rarely possible to say that these texts unequivocally says "X".

Further, the ideas you expressed are a blend of different ideas and terminology from three different epochs and three different cultures. This is again ok by itself, after all any religion that does not adjust to changing times is by definition a dead religion, but such syncretic developments obviously cannot be said to faithfully reflect any one specific - and here prehistoric - ideology or doctrine.

Anyhow,...

1. "Universal struggle" is indeed a Gathic theme. Indeed, it is the Gathic theme. Asha versus Druj, Truth versus falsehood, Order versus chaos, Creation versus decay (anti-creation), etc. etc., ad nauseum. This is the opposition that is behind the free will principle; this is the basis of *everything* in Zoroaster's philosophy; this is the foundation of Zoroastrian dualism. But it has little to do with the mainyus.
2. The opposition of the mainyus is likewise a Gathic theme, though this is not the mainyu opposition that you are thinking of, and anyway has little to do with with universal opposition theme. While they are both oppositions, they are not the same theme. Or to put it another way: hot versus cold is not the same as dry versus wet.
3. The mainyu opposition has nothing to do with the Sassanians. What you are (perhaps) referring to is a 19th century interpretation. See Angra Mainyu for details.
4. No, Zoroaster does not "describe the universe as good." Creation is good because Mazda is only good. The logical consequence is that "bad" has a source other than Mazda.
5. No, at no point do the Gathic texts describe Mazda as "the only God." Exalted yes. Such is the nature of Indo-Iranian religious poetry, where each hymn(-set) exalts exactly one entity and those closest to Him/Her. Neither the Gathas nor any other texts of the genre either state or imply that other entities are being rejected; other entities are simply ... not relevant.
6. "without an opponent" is an over-simplification, and ignores the identification of Creation and Asha with Mazda.
7. "only a human struggle" is likewise an over-simplification. Conscience is only one dimension in the thoughts/words/deeds paradigm.
8. The Sassanians didn't translate mainyu as "spirit" either. The Sassanians didn't speak English. :)
   As for what mainyu *means*, well, it cannot be translated with a single word into English, so "spirit" and "mentality" are both simultaneously correct and incorrect. "Mentality" comes from A.A. Jafferey, who had the advantage of only needing to dabble with 17 verses out of several hundred, and of not being subject to the scrutiny of peer review.
   Whats important (in a Gathic context) is that mainyu not be interpreted as 'being'. And nobody in his right mind does that.

Anyway, since the Zoroaster article doesn't even allude to the mainyus and lest anyone be bothered by our mistreatment of article talk space as a forum :), if you have any further questions, please post them on my user page or send me mail (link is on all userpages below the "search" box).

-- Fullstop 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone gets around to re-organizing or re-writing this article: the Philosophy section is very limited, and does not even foreshadow that later the article: 1. says that Nietzsche (who was knowledgable about classic texts and maybe ancient texts such as Zoroaster's) "asserted that ... Zoroaster ... had been the first to proclaim the opposition between “good” and “evil.”" 2. refers to "Zoroaster’s ethical dualism". It might be good see 1 and 2 foreshadowed or described in the Philosophy section. Bo99 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

historicity

said Fullstop: '"he is historical, insofar as he is the author of the Gathas by definition" is neither a meaningful sentence nor can non-historical texts be used to debate historical authenticity'

surely this is a misunderstanding? The Gathas are not only very historical (that is, their language is authentic ancient Iranian), "Zarathustra" is also identical to the Zarathustra-of-the-Gathas. The Gathas are simply all we have. To say Zarathustra is unhistorical is to claim that the Gathas were written by another poet of the same name... In this sense, it is perfectly meaningful to say that Zarathustra is historical as the author of the Gathas 'by definition'. It's the same with Shakespeare: if he isn't historical, who wrote the sonnets? dab (𒁳) 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Earl of Oxford or course. Paul B 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

hehehe. Quoth the Dark Lady nevermore. -- Fullstop 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oxford? OXFORD!!?? Everyone knows it was Christoper Marlowe, despite the elitist conspiracy to oppress the truth. Oxford is just a red herring. Studerby 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Balderdash! The equally fictional Hildegard Hammerschmidt Hummel (around here scornedknown as "Hi-Ha-Hu") says both de Vere and Marlowe are out of the question. It was none other than the papist Francis Bacon!

Hi-Ha-Hu is a direct descendant and owns a stubble of his beard from his death mask, so she has the inside track to real McCoy! -- Fullstop 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that "Zoroaster is generally accepted to be an authentic historical figure" is misleading. What is generally accepted is that the Gathas were composed by someone, and that this author refers to himself as Zarathustra in the hymns. That's it. No other case for "historicity" can be made. The "life and times" of Zarathustra are entirely dependent on when and where you place the Gathas. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed your own own point, and no, thats not "that's it" at all. The issue of the historicity of Zoroaster has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any texts, nor was there (quite correctly) any allusion whatsoever to any texts in the statement you removed. This is a connection that you now make. If its "misleading," its only because you aren't taking things at face value, but are reading things into what is actually a very very simple sentence.

Nor is the sentence you removed making any point whatsoever other than to (subtly) acknowledge that "we are aware that there are people who think otherwise," without giving these voices undue weight. That can - I think - be safely be presumed to be the idea behind the original insertion, way back when people were a little more circumspect and didn't think they knew everything and everyone else was an imbecile.

Like any issue that is/has been an academic bone of contention (sometimes even evident here in talk: date, name, place, historicity) its more sensible to subtly acknowledge them in the proper context and without giving them undue weight than to ignore them altogether, which - as seen in other articles - only lead to wooly re-insertions.

Subtle allusions are also present in other sections of the article, again to acknowledge a non-consensus position (that due to the eminence of its author(s) unfortunately has to be acknowledged) but without giving it undue weight. In one case, someone thoughtlessly removed such a sentence, and another sentence was thoughtlessly tagged with a {{cn}}, so demanding that a light allusion become what is now a fully referenced (and thus outrageously weighted) position.

In any case, you missed the point that you were originally trying to make, which is: while there is no evidence for his historicity, he is generally considered to be a historic figure anyway. Which is all that the sentence said.

-- Fullstop 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with any of this. I stand by the edit of mine you cite as superior to the bit I removed now, but it isn't true that "there are people who think otherwise": it isn't possible to assert Z didn't exist because he is the author of the Gathas, and it stands to reason that the Gathas must have been composed by somebody. The historicity of Z has everything to do with texts, namely the Gathas. Without the Gathas, discussing the historicity of Z would be as idle as discussing the historicity of Abraham. dab (𒁳) 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake lose some of that gawd awful self-righteousness. I am not arguing with you over the merits of your argument. Which is, was, and forever will be irrelevant. Its inadmissible, even iff it were valid.

There are actually two points, and you are missing both of them.

1. As I said before, the Gathas are completely irrelevant. (Are you *LISTENING*?)
   • First, the issue under scrutiny is not what you think it is: what is being questioned is not the historicity (which is indeed "idle" chatter). Instead, what has been questioned is the academic assumption of historicity, and this has very real academic repercussions.
   • Second, no one is so stupid as to claim that the "narrator figure" of any text cannot be a projection of a hero figure. The Avesta is replete with such literary devices.
   • Third, the assumption of a particular historicity influences other parameters (eg name/date/place).
2. A couched nod in a particular direction doesn't hurt. Don't be more certain than you have reason to be. If someone actually chose to enforce NPOV, they could and there wouldn't be a darn thing you (or I) could do about it if they actually had the RS citations (which are many). They'd be completely in accord with policy too, and the weight would slide from being only an acknowledgment (as it was) to a fully qualified point. And it would be impossible to balance because there is no citeable contradicting position.
   All that only because you insist that you are "right"? So much for realpolitikal common sense. As I said before: its more sensible to subtly acknowledge them in the proper context and without giving them undue weight than to ignore them altogether, which - as seen in other articles - only lead to wooly re-insertions.

Ergo, there is absolutely no reason to remove "Z. is generally accepted to be an authentic historical figure." Least of all for supposedly being "misleading." If you still think it is "misleading" (no rationale seen thus far, is there one?), then you presumably have a better phrase that says the same thing but is "not" misleading.

-- Fullstop 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus amongst the majority of Western writes is that Zoroaster is historical. There has been many in the West who have doubted Abraham, Moses, Noah, Christ, Homer and even Shakespear. Up to the 20th century, hardly anyone debated the existence of Zoroaster. This article gives a flavor of the opposing camp [8] but this is minority view. (Once in a while it seems some Iranists get bored and cook up a new idea) but I don't think we can give much merit to a minority view. Mary Boyce who is the biggest name in Zoroastrian scholarship has accepted the prophet as authentic. We simply have to go with the overwhelming consensus and not give undue weight. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point in your comment that would contribute to this discussion? Or are just trying to tell us you know how to use google?

Heavens, you can't even put together three sentences without reeking of OR or cooking up a new idea yourself.

Not only does Humbach (!) not give anyone a flavor of the opposing camp, you can't even evaluate your search for Kellens properly. Let me help you here:

"The prophet's authorship has recently been questioned by Jean Kellens and Éric Pirart..."

See anyone being cited for questioning Z's historicity? No, didn't think so.

-- Fullstop 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, I have no interest in getting into a row with you over this. I have enough on my hands with really flawed content, and I do respect you as a good editor, but it really seems that you are missing the point completely. At least, none of your points addresses what I am talking about. Your statement "you can't even evaluate your search for Kellens properly" is needlessly polemic, and likewise beside the point. If Z's authorship is rejected, discussing his historicity becomes a moot point. Doesn't it strike you that the EI has "Zoroaster and the Greeks", "Zoroaster, the name" and "Zoroaster in the West", but no article on "Zoroaster"? The Date of Zoroaster is the Date of the Gathas, there is no distinction between these questions. How about we go down to citing academic literature directly? I did see your saying "the Gathas are irrelevant", but I have no idea what you mean to say by that, and just repeating it doesn't make it any clearer. How about I repeat that the Gathas have everything to do with Z's historicity? I have honestly no idea what you are trying to say, and why you think the Gathas are "irrelevant". Maybe if we can clear up this point we can come to an agreement. dab (𒁳) 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See, again you're assuming that I'm missing a point, when in fact, I had just told you that "the point" of the sentence you removed is not what you think it is.

Since I'm saying that you've misunderstood something, it might be helpful if you - for just one moment - consider that there just might be something you're missing.

So, for just a second assume that you're off on a wrong tangent, and read what I wrote again.

You will not be able to understand what I wrote as long as you cling to the idea that anything/everything related to the assumption of the historicity of Z. (history! real!) is bound to/by the Gathas (literature! art!). It is not! The plate is bigger than that the food on it. (you get the tellerrand analogy I assume?) :)

--

but I have no idea what you mean to say by that, and just repeating it doesn't make it any clearer. Then you're not thinking in relationship to the sentence you removed. You're obsessing with texts! (OT: This is evident again in your reinsertion of "Gathas" into the second sentence. Texts are not arbitrarily strung together words. They are ideas with meaning. Subject to interpretation of course, but that does not mean that ideas are not evident).

If Z's authorship is rejected, discussing his historicity becomes a moot point. Can't you see how you're blinding yourself by connecting authorship of the Gathas to specific historicity? Open your mind!

• THINK: What is the reason why Z. is assumed to have existed? Because the Greeks were obsessed with him. Is the Greek fascination for Z. based on the Gathas? Of course not. But he was still real for them. And it is from the Greeks and Romans that the name Z. first appears on academic radar and it is again due to the Greeks that Zoroaster is a figure in western cultural consciousness. As far as early European scholarship was concerned, Zoroaster had existed and had personally founded an esoteric religion based on alchemy, astrology and whatnot. They did not have any indigenous texts upon which to make the assumption that Zoroaster existed. None. Leave alone a single one of Zoroaster's own "two million verses". But they assumed Zoroaster had existed anyway. Any connection between the Gathas and Zoroaster? None.
• Europe and academia did not even know of the Gathas until the 1850s or so. Obviously people did not only then begin to think that Zoroaster existed because the Gathas had suddenly been identified.
• Before the misconceptions (or what we today consider to have been misconceptions) surrounding the term "Gathas" were corrected, the "Gathas" were commonly thought to be a synonym for "Avesta."
• How much of the Avesta was previously thought to be by Zoroaster? All of it.
• The EIr doesn't have an article on Zoroaster because the EIr does not have a volume for the letter Z and has not made a call for an article on Zoroaster. The EIr editors are still working on 'I' for "Iran", and are still far off from "M" for the well-documented "Mani", leave alone from "Z" for Zoroaster.
• If - as you think - "the Date of Zoroaster is the Date of the Gathas, [and] there is no distinction between these questions" then why is there such a great range between the dates for Zoroaster? It would be a range for the Gathas, not for Zoroaster. And how could Zoroaster's date again be leaning towards the 6th century? Because good science is constantly reevaluating its assumptions.
• Do we have any basis for the assumption that the Gathas - and only the Gathas - were by Zoroaster? No. Neither the Avesta nor the medieval Zoroastrian texts nor Zoroastrian tradition says any such thing. This identification is from Haug. How did he come to this conclusion? He guessed. How well did he guess? He assumed that "Gathas" included everything in OAv, including all of Y. 28-53, which (also) has a few YAv verses. When did Haug think Zoroaster lived? "not later than 2300 BC"
• Was Haug "wrong" to think the Haptaingaiti was written by Zoroaster? (trick question). Wait for it... wait... wait... Boyce too thinks YH was written by Zoroaster. Which is (also) why her date for Zoroaster is earlier than anyone else's. Does Boyce represent "the overwhelming consensus" as some editor recently asserted? No. Is Boyce "wrong"? No. There is no "wrong" and "right." There are certainties and uncertainties, and nothing about Zoroaster is a certainty.
• Is academia in one voice about how much of the OAv. texts are by Zoroaster? No. The Gathas are the commonly accepted subset.
• Who are the "authorities" for matters related to Zoroaster the person? Any Gatha authorities amongst them? No. Any Avestan language authorities amongst them? No. Insler? Humbach? Kellens? Hoffmann? Narten? Geldner? Bartholomae? No. No. No. No. No. No. The authority is still Jackson's Zoroaster. Did Jackson do any Gathas research? No. What about the now utterly discredited Herzfeld ("Zoroaster the politician") or Nyberg ("Zoroaster the shamanist")? They didn't contribute anything on the Gathas either. What about Henning who so effectively demolished Herzfeld and Nyberg? Nope. No Gathas stuff from him either.
• Devil's advocate: Did Zoroaster write the Vendidad? Perhaps (e.g. transmission errors causing artifical YAv?) but probably not. So someone must have inserted Zoroaster's name as having a dialogue with Mazda. Is this not the same literary device used in the Gathas? Might not the Gathas have been composed long after Zoroaster, with some kavi inserting Zoroaster's name after the fact? Is the other way around not also a possibility? The point is... there is no shortage of uncertainties in such a young discipline.
• Is the "historicity" of Zoroaster contested? No (not significantly). It is the assumption of historicity that is contested. Big difference. Scientific procedure not "Gathas".

This is what the sentence you removed was in relation to. Not the Gathas! Scientific procedure! Not Gathas. Any texts! Not Gathas. Any epoch! Not Gathas. Any culture! Not Gathas. ALL SOURCES!

Julius Caesar can be assumed to have existed because so many *OTHERS* wrote about him, not because he wrote the de Bellos!

For the same reasons, the Gathas are completely irrelevant to "Zoroaster is generally accepted to be an authentic historical figure." There is also nothing in that sentence that is "misleading." Unless you tack "Gathas" onto it. Then you make it misleading. And by now you should know that my sentences are very carefully weighed. If I am not explicit then I am so for a reason: Don't be more certain than you have reason to be

-- Fullstop 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment shows good spirit and dedication, but I am afraid it doesn't parse at all. None of your 'points' seems to have anything to do with what I said. I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that I may be missing something, but you do not seem to be able to point it out. You say

If - as you think - "the Date of Zoroaster is the Date of the Gathas, [and] there is no distinction between these questions" then why is there such a great range between the dates for Zoroaster? It would be a range for the Gathas, not for Zoroaster.

- which is of course precisely the case. I really don't see what you want. dab (𒁳) 18:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If I get this right Dbachmann ('dab') is essentially saying: "The Gathas are real. Therefore, since he wrote them, Zoroaster must have been real. Therefore further evidence of Zoroaster's historicity is unnessesary". This makes sense if you define Zoroaster simply as "the person who wrote the Gathas".

However, one thing I believe he is missing is that Zoroaster didn't necessarily write the Gathas, even if they are written in the first person [I know little about Zoroaster or the Gathas]. For example, Zoroaster might have been a fictional character, invented by somebody else who wrote the Gathas as if they were Zoroaster.

If George Lucas wrote a diary of Luke Skywalker from Luke Skywalker's point of view, that wouldn't make Luke Skywalker an actual historical person. He might seem that way to future generations who have lost all knowledge of George Lucas, though.

Therefore other evidence, and/or conjecture about Zoroaster's historicity is potentially quite relevant to an encyclopedia entry on him. ~ Lach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.31.7 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

name

The most extensive biography of Z is given by Zarthusht Bahram Pezhdo in his poetic masterpiece Zarthusht-nama around the mongol era. Bahram Pezhdo was a Zoroastrian himself and well familiar with lots of sources that might have been lost today. It is in Persian. His name comes up more in Persian texts than Greek texts (Shahnameh-e Daqiqi and etc.), so the Parsi-Dari name should stay. --alidoostzadeh 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should contain a section on Zoroaster's Historicity which has been challenged in recent years by Mole and more recently by Kellens and Skjaervo

virgin birth?

Some other places on internet say Zoraster was supposed to be of virgin birth. Is this accurate? http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm says "Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.217.250 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy section - bad written!

I thought some sentences are not properly written in the last paragraph of the Philosophy section.
For example: "According to linguistically analysis of ..."
and: "Scientists presume that Genesis it is written ..."

Overall, it looks like it was written by a believer that wants to teach something. It's not neutral at all.
The paragraph starts loaded with strong emotional words: "It is not emphasized enough the importance and influence of Zoroaster philosophy to ..."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonello (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of Zoroaster

I don't understand the current consensus among modern scholars to discard the traditional date for a second millenium B.C. date. The traditional date seems to be a response to the Macedonian conquerors establishing an "Age of Alexander" date. The traditional date was instituted during the reign of the Seleucids. Establishing an "Age of Zoroaster" date, I guess. You would think the Zoroastrian priests of the time would know whether Zoroaster was born around 300 years earlier or a 1000 years earlier. After all there seems to be no record of Zoroastrians between the second millenium B.C. and the traditional date. Zoroastrianism seems to arrive on the scene about the time of Cyrus the Great and the traditional date. If the earlier date is correct, where were all the Zoroastrians? Basing an early date for Zoroaster on the fact that the Gathas are written in Old Avestan is like dating a document by the Pope written in the twentieth century to 1000-1500 years earlier because its written in Latin. There is no reason why Old Avestan couldn't have been the priestly language at the time of the traditional date. Likewise, there is no reason why Zoroaster couldn't have lived in a rural climate not reflective of living in an empire. I think the strongest evidence for the traditional date is that there is no evidence of Zoroastrians before then. Barney Hill (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)